Federal Register Vol. 80, No.136,

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 136 (July 16, 2015)

Page Range41987-42371
FR Document

80_FR_136
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
80 FR 42152 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Penny Pilot ProgramPDF
80 FR 42133 - Privacy Act of 1974; Proposed New Routine Use; System of RecordsPDF
80 FR 42085 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
80 FR 42165 - Tunnel Hill Partners, LP-Acquisition of Control Exemption-Hainesport Industrial Railroad, LLCPDF
80 FR 42160 - Forty-First Meeting: Special Committee 206 (SC 206)PDF
80 FR 42161 - Thirty-Fourth Meeting: Special Committee 224 (SC 224)PDF
80 FR 42160 - Fifth Meeting: Special Committee 230 (SC 230)PDF
80 FR 42103 - Government in the Sunshine Meeting NoticePDF
80 FR 42086 - Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Second Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to Court DecisionPDF
80 FR 42127 - Approval of Information Collection Requirements; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 42034 - Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RIPDF
80 FR 42038 - Safety Zone; Town of Olcott Fireworks Display; Lake Ontario, Olcott, NYPDF
80 FR 42072 - Safety Zone, Indian River Bay; Millsboro, DEPDF
80 FR 42118 - Public Land Order No. 7837; Extension of Public Land Order No. 7174; Pactola Visitor Information Center, Pactola Marina North, and Pactola Marina South; South DakotaPDF
80 FR 42032 - Special Local Regulations; Beaufort Water Festival, Beaufort, SCPDF
80 FR 42050 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Lancaster Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter StandardPDF
80 FR 42053 - Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 30 for Significant New Alternatives Policy ProgramPDF
80 FR 42042 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Lead and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality StandardsPDF
80 FR 42162 - Deepwater Port License Application: Delfin LNG, LLC, Delfin LNG Deepwater PortPDF
80 FR 42105 - Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Small Building Risk Sharing Initiative Final NoticePDF
80 FR 42108 - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Tool: Solicitation of Comment-30-Day Notice Under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995PDF
80 FR 42117 - HUD Administrative Fee Formula-Extension of Public CommentPDF
80 FR 42104 - Waterway Suitability Assessment for Liquefied Natural Gas Facility; Nikiski, AlaskaPDF
80 FR 42036 - Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL; Between Mile Markers 296.1 and 296.7PDF
80 FR 42037 - Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan Including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL; Between Mile Markers 286 and 286.5PDF
80 FR 42165 - Energy Solutions, LLC, d.b.a. Heritage Railroad Corporation-Abandonment Exemption-in Anderson and Roane Counties, Tenn.PDF
80 FR 42087 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings and HearingsPDF
80 FR 42069 - Special Local Regulations; Temporary Change for Recurring Marine Event in the Fifth Coast Guard DistrictPDF
80 FR 42030 - Special Local Regulations; Southeast Drag Boat Championships, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SCPDF
80 FR 42159 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Walid Raad” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 42159 - Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Museum of Stones” ExhibitionPDF
80 FR 42100 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of West VirginiaPDF
80 FR 42101 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of VermontPDF
80 FR 42101 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of MississippiPDF
80 FR 42100 - Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of FloridaPDF
80 FR 42159 - Delegation by the Deputy Secretary of State to the Under Secretary for Management of the Authority To Waive Inclusion of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities in United States Diplomatic Facilities in the Russian Federation and Adjacent CountriesPDF
80 FR 42159 - Advisory Committee for the Study of Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (Title VIII)PDF
80 FR 42094 - Agency Information Collection Extension With ChangesPDF
80 FR 42094 - Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Revision to the List of Covered FacilitiesPDF
80 FR 42067 - Power Reactor In-Core MonitoringPDF
80 FR 42097 - American Midstream (Midla), LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
80 FR 42096 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
80 FR 42099 - Clark Canyon Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
80 FR 42095 - PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice of FilingPDF
80 FR 42129 - ZionSolutions, LLC; Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2PDF
80 FR 42079 - Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins; Addition of Certain Influenza Virus Strains to the List of Select Agents and ToxinsPDF
80 FR 42102 - Update to Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Has Been Appointed Either Receiver, Liquidator, or ManagerPDF
80 FR 42161 - Hours of Service (HOS) of Drivers; Applications for Exemption From the 14-Hour RulePDF
80 FR 42123 - Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Lower Living Standard Income Level (LLSIL) CorrectionPDF
80 FR 42124 - Comment Request for Information Collection for Form ETA-9165, Employer-Provided Survey Attestations To Accompany H-2B Prevailing Wage Determination Request Based on a Non-OES Survey (OMB Control Number 1205-0516), Extension.PDF
80 FR 42122 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 42092 - Manual for Courts-Martial; Amendments to Military Rule of Evidence 803(10)PDF
80 FR 42091 - Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 42125 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 42123 - ATI Specialty Alloys and Components Albany Operations, 34th Avenue, a Subsidiary of Alleghany Technologies Incorporated, Including Workers Whose Wages Are Reported Under Oregon Metallurgical and TDY Industries and Including On-Site Leased Workers From Kelly Services, LBCC, Cadd Connections, Evergreen Engineering, Jibe Consulting, and Oregon Industrial Albany, Oregon; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
80 FR 42121 - 177th Meeting of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans; Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 42097 - Five-Year Review of the Oil Pipeline Index; Notice Regarding ConferencePDF
80 FR 42098 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
80 FR 42103 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
80 FR 42102 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
80 FR 42120 - Generalized System of Preferences: Possible Modifications, 2014 ReviewPDF
80 FR 42040 - Agency Interpretation of Prosthetic Replacement of a JointPDF
80 FR 42093 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Guaranty Agencies Security Self-Assessment and AttestationPDF
80 FR 42091 - Evaluation of State Coastal Management ProgramsPDF
80 FR 42085 - Shasta County Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
80 FR 42118 - Idaho; Filing of Plats of SurveyPDF
80 FR 42117 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft Recovery Plan for the Salt Creek Tiger BeetlePDF
80 FR 42088 - Addition of Species to the Annexes of the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife in the Wider Caribbean RegionPDF
80 FR 42134 - New Postal ProductPDF
80 FR 42149 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 6730 (Transaction Reporting) To Require Members To Report Transactions in TRACE-Eligible Securities as Soon as PracticablePDF
80 FR 42139 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change Concerning the Implementation of New Risk Models in Order To Support the Clearance and Settlement of Asian-Style Flexibly Structured Options and Flexibly Structured Cliquet OptionsPDF
80 FR 42146 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Credit Default Swap Risk PoliciesPDF
80 FR 42152 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Introduce Asian Style Settlement and Cliquet Style Settlement for FLexible Exchange Broad-Based Index OptionsPDF
80 FR 42156 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order Under Rule 3301A(b)PDF
80 FR 42137 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Relating to Non-Penny Pilot Options FeesPDF
80 FR 42141 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.PDF
80 FR 42136 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange Clearing Corporation; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Stock Clearing Corporation of Philadelphia; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Amend the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.PDF
80 FR 42151 - Submission Collection; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 42135 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
80 FR 42128 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Information on Meetings With Outside Parties Pursuant to Executive Order 12866PDF
80 FR 42132 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB ReviewPDF
80 FR 42130 - Zion Solutions, LLC, Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, License Termination PlanPDF
80 FR 42044 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic CompoundsPDF
80 FR 42132 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Unit No(s). 1 and 2PDF
80 FR 42075 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic CompoundsPDF
80 FR 42021 - Stage 3 Compliance for Jets Weighing 75,000 Pounds or Less After December 31, 2015PDF
80 FR 42069 - Alzchem AG; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use)PDF
80 FR 42119 - Certain Toner Supply Containers and Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
80 FR 42166 - Notice of MeetingPDF
80 FR 41987 - Conservation Reserve ProgramPDF
80 FR 42020 - Establishment of Class E Airspace; Defuniak Springs, FLPDF
80 FR 42068 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Ponce, PRPDF
80 FR 42028 - Administrative UpdatesPDF
80 FR 42167 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Reform of Requirements for Long-Term Care FacilitiesPDF
80 FR 42014 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 42005 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
80 FR 42018 - Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. AirplanesPDF
80 FR 42010 - Airworthiness Directives; GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd AirplanesPDF
80 FR 42271 - Affirmatively Furthering Fair HousingPDF
80 FR 42012 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
80 FR 42022 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 42025 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 42026 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 42023 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
80 FR 42046 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter StandardPDF
80 FR 42066 - Change of AddressPDF
80 FR 42007 - Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turboprop EnginesPDF
80 FR 42076 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery ProgramPDF

Issue

80 136 Thursday, July 16, 2015 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Commodity Credit Corporation

See

Farm Service Agency

See

Forest Service

Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Reform of Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities, 42168-42269 2015-17207 Chemical Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 42085-42086 2015-17581 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Block Island Wind Farm, Rhode Island Sound, RI, 42034-42036 2015-17484 Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, between Mile Markers 286 and 286.5, 42037-42038 2015-17459 Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, between Mile Markers 296.1 and 296.7, 42036-42037 2015-17460 Town of Olcott Fireworks Display, Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY, 42038-42040 2015-17483 Special Local Regulations: Beaufort Water Festival, Beaufort, SC, 42032-42034 2015-17477 Southeast Drag Boat Championships, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bucksport, SC, 42030-42032 2015-17455 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Indian River Bay, Millsboro, DE, 42072-42075 2015-17482 Special Local Regulations: Temporary Change for Recurring Marine Event in the Fifth Coast Guard District, 42069-42072 2015-17456 NOTICES Waterway Suitability Assessments for Liquefied Natural Gas Facilities: Nikiski, AK, 42104-42105 2015-17461 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Credit Commodity Credit Corporation RULES Conservation Reserve Program, 41987-42005 2015-17317 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42091-42092 2015-17428 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Manual for Courts-Martial: Amendments to Military Rule of Evidence, 42092-42093 2015-17429 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guaranty Agencies Security Self-Assessment and Attestation, 42093-42094 2015-17415 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans, 42121-42122 2015-17424 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42124-42125 2015-17431 Eligibility to Apply For Worker Adjustment Assistance; Investigations, 42125-42127 2015-17427 Worker Adjustment and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; Eligibility Determinations, 42122-42123 2015-17430 Worker and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; Amended Certifications: ATI Specialty Alloys and Components, Albany, OR, 42123 2015-17425 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Lower Living Standard Income Level; Correction, 42123-42124 2015-17432 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Information Administration

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000: Revision to the List of Covered Facilities, 42094 2015-17443
Energy Information Energy Information Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42094-42095 2015-17444 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 42046-42050 2015-16921 Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Lancaster Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 42050-42053 2015-17471 Virginia; Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds, 42044-42046 2015-17386 Washington; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Lead and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 42042-42043 2015-17467 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 30 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, 42053-42066 2015-17469 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Georgia; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program, 42076-42079 2015-16076 Virginia; Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds, 42075-42076 2015-17384 NOTICES Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Florida; Authorized Program Revision Approval, 42100-42101 2015-17449 Mississippi; Authorized Program Revision Approval, 42101-42102 2015-17450 Vermont; Authorized Program Revision Approval, 42101 2015-17451 West Virginia; Authorized Program Revision Approval, 42100 2015-17452 Farm Service Farm Service Agency RULES Conservation Reserve Program, 41987-42005 2015-17317 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 42005-42007 2015-17202 GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Airplanes, 42010-42012 2015-17193 Honeywell International Inc. Turboprop Engines; Corrections, 42007-42010 2015-16587 PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Airplanes, 42018-42020 2015-17200 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 42012-42018 2015-17023 2015-17203 Establishment of Class E Airspace: Defuniak Springs, FL, 42020-42021 2015-17286 Stage 3 Compliance for Jets Weighing 75,000 Pounds or Less After December 31, 2015, 42021-42022 2015-17382 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures: Miscellaneous Amendments, 42022-42028 2015-16968 2015-16971 2015-16983 2015-16986 PROPOSED RULES Amendments of Class E Airspace: Ponce, PR, 42068-42069 2015-17272 NOTICES Meetings: Special Committee 206, 42160 2015-17515 Special Committee 224, 42161 2015-17511 Special Committee 230, 42160-42161 2015-17508 Federal Contract Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42127-42128 2015-17485 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Updated Listings of Financial Institutions in Liquidation, 42102 2015-17434 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: American Midstream (Midla), LLC, 42097-42098 2015-17441 Combined Filings, 42096-42099 2015-17422 2015-17440 Fillings: PJM Interconnection, LLC, 42095 2015-17438 Meetings: Five-Year Review of the Oil Pipeline Index; Conference, 42097 2015-17423 Preliminary Permit Applications: Clark Canyon Hydro, LLC, 42099 2015-17439 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: American Moving and Storage Association; International Association of Movers; 14-hour Rule; Denials, 42161-42162 2015-17433 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 42102-42103 2015-17419 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 42103 2015-17420 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 42103-42104 2015-17505 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Salt Creek Tiger Beetle; Draft Recovery Plan, 42117-42118 2015-17409 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Rulemaking: Alzchem AG; Food Additive for Animal Use, 42069 2015-17379 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee, 42085 2015-17411 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

PROPOSED RULES Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins: Addition of Certain Influenza Virus Strains to the List of HHS Select Agents and Toxins, 42079-42084 2015-17435
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department RULES Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, 42272-42371 2015-17032 NOTICES Administrative Fee Formula; Extensions, 42117 2015-17462 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Tool, 42108-42117 2015-17463 Small Building Risk Sharing Initiative, 42105-42108 2015-17464 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China, 42086-42087 2015-17486 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Toner Supply Containers and Components Thereof, 42119-42120 2015-17370 Generalized System of Preferences: Possible Modifications, Review, 42120-42121 2015-17418 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Federal Contract Compliance Programs Office

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Plats of Surveys: Idaho, 42118-42119 2015-17410 Public Land Orders: Pactola Visitor Information Center, Pactola Marina North, and Pactola Marina South; SD, 42118 2015-17478 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Information on Meetings with Outside Parties Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, 42128-42129 2015-17391 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES License Applications: Delfin LNG, LLC, Delfin LNG Deepwater Port, 42162-42165 2015-17465 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration RULES Administrative Updates, 42028-42030 2015-17214 National Endowment for the Humanities National Endowment for the Humanities RULES Change of Address; Technical Amendment, 42066 2015-16844 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Humanities

National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Additions of Species to Annexes of Protocols Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife: Wider Caribbean Region, 42088-42091 2015-17408 Evaluations of State Coastal Management Programs: Puerto Rico Coastal Zone, 42091 2015-17412 Meetings: Pacific Fishery Management Council, 42087-42088 2015-17457 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Power Reactor In-Core Monitoring, 42067-42068 2015-17442 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: ZionSolutions, LLC; Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 42129-42130 2015-17436 License Amendment Applications: Exelon Generation Co., LLC, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Unit No(s). 1 and 2; Withdrawal, 42132 2015-17385 License Termination Plans: Zion Solutions, LLC, Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, 42130-42132 2015-17387 Peace Peace Corps NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 42132-42133 2015-17390 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 42133-42134 2015-17583 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 42134-42135 2015-17403 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2015-17392 42135, 42151 2015-17393 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BATS Exchange, Inc., 42141-42146 2015-17395 Boston Stock Exchange Clearing Corp.; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC; Stock Clearing Corp. of Philadelphia, 42136-42137 2015-17394 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 42152-42156 2015-17398 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 42149-42151 2015-17402 ICE Clear Europe, Ltd., 42146-42149 2015-17399 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 42152 C1--2015--16270 NASDAQ OMX PHLX, LLC, 42156-42158 2015-17397 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 42137-42139 2015-17396 Options Clearing Corp., 42139-42141 2015-17400 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Museum of Stones, 42159-42160 2015-17453 Walid Raad, 42159 2015-17454 Delegations of Authority: Authority to Waive Inclusion of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities in United States Diplomatic Facilities in the Russian Federation and Adjacent Countries, 42159 2015-17448 Meetings: Advisory Committee for the Study of Eastern Europe and the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (Title VIII), 42159 2015-17447 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Energy Solutions, LLC, d.b.a. Heritage Railroad Corp., Anderson and Roane Counties, TN, 42165-42166 2015-17458 Acquisitions of Control Exemptions: Tunnel Hill Partners, LP from Hainesport Industrial Railroad, LLC, 42165 2015-17562 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Surface Transportation Board

U.S. Institute United States Institute of Peace NOTICES Meetings: United States Institute of Peace, 42166 2015-17336 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Agency Interpretation of Prosthetic Replacement of a Joint, 42040-42042 2015-17417 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 42168-42269 2015-17207 Part III Housing and Urban Development Department, 42272-42371 2015-17032 Reader Aids

Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.

To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.thefederalregister.org and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.

80 136 Thursday, July 16, 2015 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency 7 CFR Part 718 Commodity Credit Corporation 7 CFR Part 1410 RIN 0560-AI30 Conservation Reserve Program AGENCY:

Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.

ACTION:

Interim rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule amends the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) regulations to implement provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill). This rule specifies eligibility requirements for enrollment of grassland in CRP and adds references to veteran farmers and ranchers to the provisions for Transition Incentives Program contracts, among other changes. The provisions in this rule for eligible land primarily apply to new CRP offers and contracts. For existing contracts, this rule provides additional voluntary options for permissive uses, early terminations, conservation and land improvements, and incentive payments for tree thinning. This rule also makes conforming changes to provisions applicable to multiple Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) programs, which include CRP, administered by FSA, including acreage report requirements, compliance monitoring, and equitable relief provisions.

DATES:

Effective Date: This rule is effective July 16, 2015.

Comment Date: We will consider comments that we receive by September 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

We invite you to submit comments on this interim rule. In your comment, please specify RIN 0560-AI30 and include the volume, date, and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: Director, Conservation and Environmental Programs Division (CEPD), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) FSA CEPD, Mail Stop 0513, Room 4709-S, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0513.

All written comments will be available for inspection online at www.regulations.gov and at the mail address listed above between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. A copy of this interim rule is available through the FSA home page at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beverly J. Preston, CRP Program Manager, telephone: (202) 720-9563. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication should contact the USDA Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview of This Rule

This rule amends CRP regulations in 7 CFR part 1410 to implement changes required by the 2014 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 113-79) and makes additional discretionary changes that are needed to clarify eligibility requirements and terms. It also makes discretionary and technical changes to 7 CFR part 718 that are relevant to CRP implementation. This document first provides background information on CRP, then discusses the changes to the CRP regulations, followed by a discussion of the changes to the part 718 regulations.

CRP Background and CRP Signups

The purpose of CRP is to cost-effectively assist producers in conserving and improving soil, water, and wildlife, restoring wetlands, improving other natural resources, and addressing issues raised by State, regional, and national conservation initiatives by converting environmentally sensitive cropland and marginal pastureland from the production of agricultural commodities to a long-term vegetative cover, or to improve conditions of grassland. CRP is administered by FSA on behalf of CCC. Since its inception in 1985, CRP has proven to be one of the largest and most successful conservation programs in USDA history. In exchange for annual rental payments, participating farmers and ranchers agree to remove environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production and establish conservation covers comprised of grasses, legumes, forbs, shrubs and tree species that will improve environmental health by preventing soil erosion, improving air and water quality, and enhancing wildlife habitat. In addition, participants with suitable land may restore wetlands and establish shallow water areas for wildlife. Enrollment of eligible grassland in CRP will result in adoption of sustainable grazing practices and preservation of wildlife habitat. Participants also receive cost-share payments and other one-time incentive payments for certain practices to establish, maintain, and manage the conservation covers throughout 10 to 15 year CRP contracts. A wide range of conservation practices may be enrolled under CRP, including but not limited to, introduced or native grasses and legumes, hardwood trees, wildlife habitat, grass waterways, filter strips, riparian buffers, wetlands, rare and declining habitat, upland bird habitat, longleaf pine, duck nesting habitat, and pollinator habitat.

There are three major types of CRP signups: general, continuous, and grassland. Each of the three types has specific enrollment provisions, as described below. The grassland type is a new type added by the 2014 Farm Bill. For all signups, potential participants must submit an offer for enrollment at the local FSA county office or USDA service center.

Enrollment through general signup is based on a competitive offer process during designated signup periods. The general signup occurs when the Secretary of Agriculture announces USDA will accept general signup offers for enrollment. Offers from potential program participants are ranked against each other at the national level. Ranking is based on the environmental benefits expected to result from the proposed conservation practices and expected costs. Each offer is assigned an Environmental Benefit Index (EBI) score depending on ranking factors designed to reflect the expected environmental benefits and costs. The EBI ranking system is specified in detail in the CRP handbook. These EBI factors include wildlife habitat benefits, water quality benefits, farm benefits due to reduced erosion, air quality benefits, benefits that last beyond the contract period, per acre expected costs, and local preference factors for certain benefits. In a general signup, the offer process is competitive and not all offers will necessarily rank high enough to be selected for CRP.

For practices and land with especially high environmental value, enrollment through continuous signup is available year-round without ranking periods. The continuous signup is focused on environmentally sensitive land and offers are not ranked against each other. Land eligible for continuous signup includes, but is not limited to, agricultural land with a high erodibility index; land in riparian areas that border rivers, streams, and lakes; land suitable for wetland restoration; and certain land to be dedicated to other specialized conservation measures. Subject to the acreage caps allocated to States, all continuous signup offers that meet the eligibility requirements are accepted.

Enrollment through the new grassland signup authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill will be administered on a separate continuous signup basis, and offers will be evaluated periodically and ranked. For grassland signup, this rule specifies the applicable new categories of eligible land and new grassland contract provisions. Eligible grassland include land that contain forbs or shrubland (including improved rangeland and pastureland) for which grazing is the predominant use. Up to 2 million acres may be enrolled in CRP as grassland.

This rule does not change the basic administrative structure and nature of CRP.

Overview of Changes to CRP Regulations

The 2014 Farm Bill reduced the CRP acreage enrollment cap and made several changes to CRP. For example, it mandated that non-easement functions of the repealed Grassland Reserve Program be carried out under CRP, with enrollment of up to 2 million acres authorized. These enrollments count against the CRP acreage cap. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill mandates changes to routine, prescribed, and emergency grazing, managed harvesting frequency, tree thinning payments, and other provisions.

This rule implements the changes to CRP required by the 2014 Farm Bill. These changes include revised permissive use provisions for emergency harvesting and grazing, and other commercial uses on CRP land. This rule also establishes a penalty-free early CRP contract termination opportunity in fiscal year (FY) 2015 for contracts that have been in effect for at least 5 years and meet certain environmental criteria. It specifies that CRP participants can make certain conservation and land improvements for economic use in the final year of the CRP contract that facilitate protection of enrolled land after contract expiration, and establishes a new type of incentive payment to encourage participants to perform tree thinning and related measures on CRP land. As discussed earlier, it also adds references to veteran farmers and ranchers to the Transition Incentives Program, and includes provisions to reflect the new eligibility requirements for grassland in CRP. This rule also includes the following discretionary provisions to clarify requirements where the 2014 Farm Bill did not define terms or otherwise provided FSA discretion in implementation:

• The “infeasible to farm” provision allows enrollment of the remainder of a field in which CRP practices other than buffers are enrolled on at least 75 percent of the acres in the field, if the remaining land is “infeasible to farm;”

• Grasslands are now eligible for CRP and FSA may enroll up to 2 million acres;

• Up to $10 million in incentive payments may be made to encourage tree thinning and other measures that improve the environmental performance of CRP tree plantings;

• Land may be transferred from CRP to the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP); and

• The amount of cropland (that is not in a National Conservation Priority Area) that can be in a State Conservation Priority Area (CPA) was reduced from 33 percent to 25 percent.

The changes to the CRP regulations are discussed in this document in the order that they appear in 7 CFR part 1410.

Many of the changes to CRP required by the 2014 Farm Bill have already been implemented through an extension of authorization published June 5, 2014 (79 FR 32435-32436). Specifically, the extension announced the continuation of continuous signup, 2014 Transition Incentives Program, and early contract termination opportunities in FY 2015. This rule implements the remaining provisions required by the 2014 Farm Bill, including the new grassland eligibility provisions and the revisions to permissive uses, as well as the discretionary changes.

Definitions

This rule makes the following changes to the definitions specified in § 1410.2:

The rule adds a new definition for the new ACEP authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill. The 2014 Farm Bill allows USDA to modify a CRP contract to allow a participant to transfer CRP land into ACEP.

The rule adds a new definition for “common grazing practices” that applies to the new grassland enrollments. For enrollments of eligible grassland, section 2004 of the 2014 Farm Bill allows the Secretary to permit common grazing practices, including maintenance and necessary cultural practices, on the enrolled land in a manner that is consistent with maintaining the viability of grassland, forb, and shrub species appropriate to that locality.

This rule modifies the definition of “conservation plan” to include provisions for grassland enrollments.

This rule clarifies that “Erodibility Index (EI)” means that FSA uses the higher of the erodibility from water or wind.

This rule adds definitions for “forb, “grassland,” “improved rangeland or pastureland,” “pastureland,” “rangeland,” and “shrubland” because they are relevant for grassland enrollments.

This rule revises the definition of “infeasible to farm” to add discretion for the Deputy Administrator to determine that land is infeasible to farm for reasons in addition to the piece of land being too small or isolated to be economically viable.

This rule adds a new definition of “nesting season” to reflect the 2014 Farm Bill requirement that permitted activities on CRP land must consider certain categories of bird nesting seasons.

This rule adds a new definition of “veteran farmer or rancher” as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill.

This rule removes the following definitions that are no longer used in the CRP regulations: “cropped wetlands,” “farmed wetlands,” “Water Bank Program (WBP),” and “wetlands farmed under natural conditions.” This rule also removes definitions of “beginning farmer or rancher,” and “limited resource farmer or rancher” from 7 CFR part 1410, because those terms are defined in 7 CFR part 718, which is referenced in 7 CFR part 1410. It removes terms including “merchantable timber,” “present value,” and “private non-industrial forest land” that were only needed to implement the Emergency Forestry Conservation Reserve Program, which the 2014 Farm Bill repealed.

Maximum County Acreage

Section 1410.4, “Maximum County Acreage” specifies that acreage placed in CRP and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) cannot exceed 25 percent of the total cropland in a county. This rule revises that section to specify that cropland enrolled under WRP or ACEP wetland reserve easements, as applicable, is included with CRP cropland as part of the maximum county acreage limits. These changes are required for consistency with the 2014 Farm Bill. This rule does not change the existing waiver provisions in this section that allow the 25 percent limit to be exceeded in some circumstances.

Eligible Persons

Section 1410.5 “Eligible Persons” is amended to add references to veteran farmers and ranchers that are required by the 2014 Farm Bill. This rule also removes a redundant provision from this section concerning ownership or operation of the land for at least 12 months prior to submitting an offer for CRP.

Eligible Land

This adds new provisions to § 1410.6 “Eligible Land” to reflect changes required by the 2014 Farm Bill. As provided for in the existing CRP regulations, eligible land for CRP includes cropland with a history of production of tillable crops or marginal pastureland. The purpose of these eligibility requirements, which are not changing with this rule, is to ensure CRP is used to convert environmentally sensitive land to a long-term environmentally beneficial cover. As part of an effort to consolidate the USDA conservation programs, the 2014 Farm Bill adds grassland as a category of eligible land for CRP, and ends authorization for the Grassland Reserve Program.

This rule amends the dates of the cropping history required for certain cropland to be eligible for CRP. Previously, eligible cropland must have been planted or considered planted for 4 of the 6 years during the period of 2002 through 2007. This rule changes the relevant cropping history period to 2008 through 2013.

This rule adds additional provisions regarding infeasible-to-farm land eligibility, as required by the 2014 Farm Bill. Specifically, it adds eligibility for land in a portion of a field not enrolled in CRP if more than 75 percent of the land in the field is enrolled as a conservation practice other than a buffer or filterstrip practice, and the remainder of the field is determined to be infeasible to farm.

This rule removes provisions for eligible land concerning scour erosion, cropped wetland and associated acres, and land associated with non-cropped wetlands. These discretionary changes are needed for clarity and consistency with current policy. This rule also clarifies that land on which environmental measures are already required to be taken by State, local, or Tribal laws is ineligible for CRP.

Duration of Contracts

This rule amends § 1410.7, “Duration of Contracts,” to clarify that continuous and general signup contracts can be between 10 years and 15 years in length. The rule also specifies that grassland signup contracts will be 15 years in length. The additional provision for grassland contracts is required by the 2014 Farm Bill; the other changes are technical clarifications that do not change the existing eligible land or contract requirements.

The current policy on contract extensions is not changing with this rule. Contracts can be extended, but the total contract period including the extension(s) cannot exceed 15 years in length. For example, a 10 year contract can be extended for 1 to 5 years, but a contract currently in year 13 could only be extended for 1 or 2 years. In the case of a contract extension, existing contract terms are extended, except when new mandatory requirements apply, such as when AGI eligibility requirements for CRP are changed by the 2014 Farm Bill.

CPA

This rule modifies § 1410.8, “Conservation Priority Areas,” to reduce the total acreage within a State that can be approved for inclusion in a state CPA from 33 percent to 25 percent of the cropland not in a designated CRP national CPA. This discretionary change will help to ensure the most suitable, highest priority land is enrolled. The 2014 Farm Bill also removed some named specific CPAs, but because those CPAs were not named in the regulations, implementing that change does not require a change to the regulations.

Conversion to Trees

This rule removes § 1410.9, “Conversion to Trees,” because that section is obsolete. It only applied to CRP contracts that began before November 28, 1990.

Restoration of Wetlands and Farmable Wetlands Program

Section 1410.10, “Restoration of Wetlands,” is amended to include references to wetland reserve easements under ACEP. This rule modifies § 1410.11 “Farmable Wetlands Program” to specify that a constructed wetland that is developed to receive surface and subsurface flow from row crop agricultural production is eligible for enrollment. This rule also specifies that the total enrollment cap under farmable wetlands is reduced from 1 million acres to 750,000 acres. Both these changes are required by the 2014 Farm Bill.

Emergency Forestry Program

Section 2702 of the 2014 Farm Bill repeals authority for Emergency Forestry CRP enrollment; this rule removes § 1410.12, “Emergency Forestry Program,” to reflect this change. As noted earlier, the definitions used only in this section have also been removed from the Definitions section. The end of authorization for new Emergency Forestry contracts, and the removal of the regulations for Emergency Forestry enrollments, does not change existing Emergency Forestry contracts.

Grassland Enrollments

The 2014 Farm Bill terminates authority for new enrollments under the Grassland Reserve Program (7 CFR part 1415) but also provides new authority for enrollment of certain grassland into CRP. Previously, only cropland of various types and marginal pastureland was eligible for enrollment in CRP. This rule adds new section on grassland enrollments in § 1410.13, with conforming changes that add grassland provisions to § 1410.23, “Eligible Practices,” § 1410.30, “Signup and Offer Types,” § 1410.31, “Acceptability of Offers,” and § 1410.40, “Cost Share Payments.”

In general, expiring Grassland Reserve Program lands are authorized to be enrolled in CRP, as well as grassland that was not in the Grassland Reserve Program but meet the provisions of § 1410.6 for eligible grassland. Grassland previously enrolled in the Grassland Reserve Program will continue to be subject to 7 CFR part 1415 for existing contracts and easements that have not expired. The 2014 Farm Bill sets an acreage cap of 2 million acres on the new grassland type of enrollment.

CRP Conservation Plan

This rule modifies § 1410.22, “CRP Conservation Plan,” to add provisions and references for the new grassland contracts. It also contains other minor edits, including adding a reference to forest stewardship plans.

Acceptability of Offers

This rule amends § 1410.31, “Acceptability of Offers,” to establish new provisions for the grassland offer acceptance process. In ranking and evaluating grassland signup offers, FSA will consider various factors, including, but not limited to, whether the offer includes expiring CRP or Grassland Reserve Program land, row crop to grassland conversion, multi-species cover, livestock grazing operations, and State priority enrollment criteria and focus areas.

Contract Modifications

This rule adds references to veteran farmers to the provisions for Transition Incentives Program contracts, as required by the 2014 Farm Bill. The 2014 Farm Bill also adds discretion for FSA to modify or terminate contracts to allow transition of CRP lands into other Federal or State conservation programs, as is reflected in this rule. This rule specifies that CRP participants who terminate CRP contracts in order to participate in ACEP or other Federal or State easement programs are generally not required to refund CRP payments or interest, or pay liquidated damages to the CCC. However, participants will be required to repay CRP Signing Incentive Payments and Practice Incentive Payments when enrolling CRP land in wetlands reserve easements under ACEP.

The 2014 Farm Bill allows contract modifications for resource conserving uses in the final year of the contract. This rule adds provisions that allow an owner or operator in the final year of the CRP contract to make land improvements for economic use, provided that those land improvements maintain protection of the land after expiration of the contract and are conducted in a manner consistent with an approved CRP conservation plan. Such land enrolled in resource conserving use will not be eligible to be re-enrolled in CRP for 5 years following expiration of the contract. The rental payment for that last year of the CRP contract during which resource conserving use land improvements are implemented will be reduced by an amount commensurate with the economic value derived from practice implementation.

Annual Rental and Incentive Payments

This rule amends the provisions in § 1410.42, “Annual Rental and Incentive Payments,” to reflect the incorporation of grassland signup and tree thinning incentives. The 2014 Farm Bill authorizes CCC to provide incentives for tree thinning to improve resource conditions, primarily wildlife habitat enhancement of CRP lands established to trees.

Grassland rental rates will be based on levels not to exceed 75 percent of the estimated grazing value of the land, as required by the 2014 Farm Bill. Tree thinning incentive payments to encourage landowners and operators to implement forest management practices that improve resource condition or enhance wildlife habitat cannot exceed 150 percent of the total cost of the practice installation.

This rule also clarifies provisions for cropland soil rental rates to better reflect that these rates are based on the relative non-irrigated cropland productivity of soils within a county using soil productivity data and prevailing county average cash rental estimates for non-irrigated cropland. This rule also clarifies that marginal pastureland rental rates are based on estimates of the prevailing rental values of marginal pastureland in riparian areas. These clarifications are discretionary.

Section 1410.42 specifies a $50,000 per fiscal year payment limit on CRP rental payments, which is not changing with this rule because the 2014 Farm Bill does not change the payment limits for CRP.

Average Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Limitation

Section 1605 of the 2014 Farm Bill establishes income limitations that apply to 2015 and subsequent crop, program, or fiscal year benefits for programs in Title II of the 2014 Farm Bill, which includes CRP. FSA previously implemented these limitations in 7 CFR part 1400 through a final rule published on April 14, 2014 (79 FR 21086-21118). This rule makes a conforming change to § 1410.44 to reflect the new AGI limits. The 2014 Farm Bill reduces the average AGI limitation for CRP from $1,000,000 to $900,000.

Previously, there was a waiver to the AGI limit for conservation programs if at least 66.66 percent of the participant's income was from farming, or on a case-by-case basis for other reasons to protect environmentally sensitive land of special significance. The AGI waivers for conservation practices are not reauthorized in the 2014 Farm Bill; therefore, this rule removes the waiver provisions in § 1410.44 to reflect this change.

Permissive Uses

CRP land uses are limited to the list of uses specified in § 1410.63, “Permissive Uses.” The intent is to ensure that CRP land is not used for activities that would tend to defeat the conservation purposes of CRP, while allowing limited activities that are consistent with CRP goals, such as grazing to control invasive species. Permissive uses must be consistent with the conservation of soil, water quality, and wildlife habitat, including habitat during the nesting season for certain categories of birds in the area. To achieve this goal, this rule adds and revises provisions for permissive uses as required by the 2014 Farm Bill. In general, these provisions include new restrictions and payment reductions related to harvesting, grazing, and other commercial land uses. There are also new grazing, haying, mowing, harvesting, and fire prevention permissive uses that apply only to the new grassland signup type.

Wind turbines are permitted on CRP land, provided that wind turbines are installed in numbers and locations as determined appropriate by CCC considering the location, size, and other physical characteristics of land and the extent to which the land contains listed threatened or endangered wildlife and wildlife habitat, and the purposes of CRP. Wind turbines are not a new permissive use, but it is slightly revised by the 2014 Farm Bill, which adds the provision about threatened or endangered wildlife and wildlife habitat.

This rule modifies the provisions for customary forestry maintenance activities to make an incentive payment to encourage proper thinning and other practices to improve the condition of resources, promote forest management, or enhance wildlife habitat on the land. These are consistent with the 2014 Farm Bill requirements.

No barrier fencing or boundary limitation can be established or maintained that prohibits wildlife access to or from the CRP acreage unless required by State law as part of any permissive use. This is a discretionary clarification that is consistent with 2014 Farm Bill requirements that permissive uses be consistent with the conservation of wildlife habitat.

This rule amends the provisions for managed harvesting and other commercial use including managed harvesting of biomass, to reflect the payment reduction of not less than 25 percent and the limitation that the activity occur at least every 5 years but not more than once every 3 years, as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill.

This rule modifies the provisions for routine grazing to be consistent with the 2014 Farm Bill restriction on routine grazing to not more than once every 2 years, with a payment reduction of not less 25 percent unless CRP participant is a beginning farmer or rancher.

The 2014 Farm Bill eliminates the payment reduction for emergency haying, emergency grazing, or other commercial use of the forage on the land in response to drought, flooding, or other emergency. This rule amends § 1410.63 to reflect this change.

Language is added to § 1410.63 to clarify that there is no payment reduction for harvesting, grazing, or other commercial use of the forage on the land in response to a drought, flooding, or other emergency, when conducted consistent with an approved CRP conservation plan, irrespective of whether the harvested material is used or sold by the contract holder.

This rule specifies a permissive use for grazing of program acreage that has been established to vegetative buffers incidental to agricultural production adjacent to the buffers, provided the use does not destroy the permanent vegetative cover, in exchange for a 25 percent payment reduction for the land being grazed. This is a clarification of the existing “incidental grazing” use that was already permitted as a type of grazing use but has not previously been specified in the regulations as a separate permissive use. Incidental grazing, which requires the payment reduction, does not include prescribed grazing to control kudzu or other invasive species. Prescribed grazing to control invasive species also requires a payment reduction, except that a beginning farmer or rancher may conduct prescribed grazing without a payment reduction.

This rule specifies the permissive activities under the new grassland enrollment component of CRP, which include common grazing practices; haying, mowing, or harvesting outside of nesting season; wildfire considerations; grazing-related activities, such as fencing; and other activities as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

Transition Incentives Program

This rule adds the term “veteran” throughout § 1410.64, “Transition Incentives Program,” to reflect that eligibility under this program includes veteran farmers and ranchers in addition to beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The definition of “veteran” as specified in the 2014 Farm Bill and in this rule specifies that to be eligible for the CRP Transition Incentives Program, the veteran must have farmed not more than 10 years. Therefore, while the addition of the term “veteran” will improve our outreach efforts to veterans and makes it more clear that they are eligible for the Transition Incentives Program, the eligible veterans would already have been eligible as beginning farmers.

“Preparing to plant a crop” has been added as an appropriate conservation and land improvement practice during the last year of the CRP contract that is being transitioned to a beginning, veteran, or socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher under the Transition Incentives Program. This additional improvement practice is specified in the 2014 Farm Bill.

Miscellaneous Conforming and Editorial Changes in CRP Regulations

In addition to the changes required by the 2014 Farm Bill and the substantive discretionary changes discussed above, this rule makes a number of nonsubstantive changes to make the CRP regulations clear and consistent. For example, where appropriate, references to “CCC” have been replaced with “Deputy Administrator” to better reflect the office responsible for applicable determinations and decisions. “Shall” has been replaced with “will” or “must” for plain language and to add clarity to requirements. Obsolete provisions are removed in 7 CFR part 1410.

Provisions Applicable to Multiple Programs

This rule amends FSA regulations in 7 CFR part 718 “Provisions Applicable to Multiple Programs” that govern base acres and acreage reports for CRP and certain other FSA commodity programs and CCC programs operated by FSA. The statutory authority for the regulations in 7 CFR part 718 come from the 2014 Farm Bill, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 Farm Bill, Pub. L. 110-246) and the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171).

As discussed previously, the purpose of CRP is to cost-effectively assist producers in conserving and improving soil, water, wildlife, restoring wetlands, improving other natural resources and addressing issues raised by State, regional, and national conservation initiatives by converting environmentally sensitive cropland and marginal pasture land from the production of agricultural commodities to a long-term vegetative cover. Enrollment of eligible grassland in CRP will result in adoption of sustainable grazing practices and preservation of wildlife habitat. To be eligible for CRP, cropland must have a cropping history for 2008 through 2013, as specified in this rule. Many FSA programs, particularly the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill, specify that eligible land includes land that has base acres, which are cropland acres with a cropping history for certain years dating back to the 1980s. When cropland is enrolled in CRP, the base acres on a farm that exceed the farm's remaining cropland that is not devoted to CRP must be reduced to reflect the CRP enrollment. In that case, the base acres are voluntarily reduced and the base acres reduced are protected (“put on hold”) for that farm while the land is enrolled in CRP. To ensure that producers are able to transition land with base acres to and from CRP, and preserve eligibility of that land for other FSA programs after the CRP contract ends, it is necessary to clarify a number of terms in part 718 that are relevant to cropping histories, production records, and base acres for multiple programs. In general, the amendments to part 718 in this rule are consistent with current agency practice and merely clarify the regulations without changing FSA policy or practice.

This rule revises the term “base acres” to remove obsolete references and replace them with references to the regulations for the new programs authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill. It adds definitions for “contiguous,” “contiguous county,” and “contiguous county office” for use in various programs authorized under the 2014 Farm Bill including the CRP, the Cotton Transition Assistance Program (CTAP), ARC and PLC, disaster assistance programs, and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). The addition of the definitions of “contiguous,” “contiguous county,” and “contiguous county office” are necessary to clarify the policy concerning changing a farm's administrative county. The addition of the term “common land unit (CLU)” is needed because FSA now uses CLU numbers instead of field numbers for many production and acreage reports. The rule adds new definitions for “double cropping,” and “subsequent crop,” which are relevant to the cropping history requirements for multiple programs. The rule amends the definition of “entity” to be consistent with the definition in 7 CFR part 1400. This rule makes clarifying changes to the definition of “owner.” The intent of these amendments to the definitions is to have clear and consistent regulations and to make it clear to producers what they must do to preserve the eligibility of land for multiple programs, including CRP.

This rule removes obsolete provisions in § 718.3, “State Committee Responsibilities,” regarding county rates for measurement services. The State Committee does not set measurement service rates.

This rule amends § 718.9 regarding signature requirements to replace the reference to “husband” and “wife” with a reference to “spouse.” It also changes the signature authority provisions to clarify the validity of documents that were previously acted on and approved by a county office or county committee, as required by section 1617 of the 2008 Farm Bill. These provisions have already been implemented, but were not in the regulations.

This rule amends § 718.102 to clarify the programs for which participants must submit acreage reports. It amends § 718.103 to clarify the requirements for documenting prevented planting. These are not new requirements; this reflects a discretionary decision to include detailed requirements previously in the handbooks in the regulations. This is needed to ensure that producers correctly document prevented planting, which is relevant to cropping history for the purposes of program eligibility for CRP and other programs.

This rule amends § 718.106, “Non-compliance and Acreage Reports,” to remove references to good faith or willful falsification. This is a program integrity issue to clarify that false acreage reports may result in program ineligibility, independent of motivation for the false report.

This rule amends § 718.112, “Redetermination,” to be consistent with current policy on when producers must submit requests for redetermination of crop acreage, appraised yield, or farm stored production.

This rule amends § 718.201, “Farm Reconstitution,” to be consistent with current policy, and to include references to land eligible for new programs authorized by the 2014 Farm Bill. This rule makes similar changes to § 718.205, “Substantive Changes in Farming Operation, and Changes in Related Legal Entities,” and § 718.206, “Determining Farms, Tracts, Allotments, Quotas, and Bases When Reconstitution is Made by Division.” As discussed earlier, these changes are relevant to preserving base acres for a given farm as land is transitioned into CRP and back into other FSA programs. This rule also amends § 718.206 to specify that, within 30 days after a prescribed form, letter, or contract providing base acres is issued, owners of the reconstituted farm may request a different designation of base acres, so long as all the owners agree in writing to the designation.

This rule amends § 718.301, “Applicability,” by adding a new paragraph that clarifies that relief provisions are not a means by which persons can obtain a review of a program's regulations or the agency's interpretations of its own regulations. This is a discretionary clarification to clarify program integrity provisions that is consistent with current policy. Similar clarifying amendments are made to other sections in subpart D, “Equitable Relief from Ineligibility.” This rule amends § 718.306 to clarify that if a determination was in any way based on erroneous, innocent, or purposeful misrepresentation; false statement; fraud; or willful misconduct by or on behalf of the participant, the determination is not final. Another amendment clarifies that FSA will correct errors and incorrect decisions.

Miscellaneous Conforming and Editorial Changes to Part 718 Related to CRP

In addition, this rule makes minor plain language changes, such as replacing “shall” with “will,” to several sections of part 718. This rule removes obsolete provisions related to CRP referring to actions taken prior to the 2008 Farm Bill. The definition of “agricultural commodity” is removed because the term is not used in the subpart in which it was defined.

Notice and Comment

In general, the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be published in the Federal Register and interested persons be given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation, except when the rule involves a matter relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. Section 2608 of the 2014 Farm Bill requires that the programs of Title II be implemented by interim rules effective on publication with an opportunity for notice and comment.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this interim rule as significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has reviewed this rule. The costs and benefits of this proposed rule are summarized below. The full cost benefit analysis is available on regulations.gov.

Clarity of the Regulation

Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this interim rule, we invite your comments on how to make the rule easier to understand. For example:

• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Are the scope and intent of the rule clear?

• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?

• Is the material logically organized?

• Would changing the grouping or order of sections or adding headings make the rule easier to understand?

• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

• Would more, but shorter, sections be better? Are there specific sections that are too long or confusing?

• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

Cost Benefit Analysis

The mandatory and discretionary changes to CRP specified in this rule are expected to have a minimal cost impact for CRP as a whole, although individual producers could experience measurable increases or decreases in financial and environmental benefits. Incentive payments for tree thinning, Transition Incentives Program payments, and new permissive uses specified in this rule are expected to increase costs to the government by $67 million for FY 2014 through 2018. That includes $10 million for tree thinning, $28 million for Transition Incentives Program payments, and $29 million for rental payments that are no longer reduced for emergency haying and grazing. Enrolling grasslands is expected to reduce costs by $31 million during FY 2014 through 2018, resulting in an estimated net overall cost of $36 million for FY 2014 through 2018, an average of $7.3 million per year.

The acreage cap for CRP specified in the 2014 Farm Bill is expected to reduce overall payments to producers (and costs to the government) for CRP by $616 million total between FY 2014 and FY 2018 ($2.8 billion between FY 2014 and FY 2023). However, that cost reduction is not the result of the specific provisions in this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule whenever an agency is required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law to publish a proposed rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the Secretary of Agriculture and FSA are not required by any law to publish a proposed rule for this rulemaking initiative. CCC is required by section 2608 of the 2014 Farm Bill to issue an interim rule effective on publication with an opportunity for comment.

Environmental Evaluation

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), FSA prepared a Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) for the changes to CRP proposed as a result of the mandatory provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill. The CRP Final SPEIS was completed as required by NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and FSA's NEPA regulations for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799).

FSA provided notice of intent (NOI) to prepare the CRP SPEIS in the Federal Register on November 29, 2013 (78 FR 71561-71562), and requested public comment on the preliminary alternatives for analyzing changes to CRP that were proposed as a result of the mandatory provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill. The Draft SPEIS public comment period began with a Notice of Availability (NOA) published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014 (79 FR 41247-41249), and public meetings were held in several locations across the country in July and August, 2014. The Final SPEIS public comment period began with a NOA published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2014 (79 FR 76952-76955).

Many of the changes to CRP from the 2014 Farm Bill did not require analysis in the SPEIS because they were administrative in nature, clarified the mandatory provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill, would not result in major changes to the current administration of CRP, and were addressed in previous NEPA documentation concerning CRP. Only those changes that did not meet these criteria were included in the SPEIS.

As part of this CRP rulemaking initiative, FSA prepared a Record of Decision, which identified the alternative selected for implementation and outlines the rationale, as well as a discussion of any final comments received for the SPEIS, and was published on June 18, 2015 (80 FR 34883-86).

Executive Order 12372

Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” requires consultation with State and local officials that would be directly affected by proposed Federal financial assistance. The objectives of the Executive Order are to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism, by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development. For reasons specified in the final rule related document regarding 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), the programs and activities in this rule are excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372.

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule is not retroactive and does not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. Before any judicial action may be brought regarding provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR parts 11, 624, and 780 must be exhausted.

Executive Order 13132

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies contained in this proposed rule would not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, except as required by law. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

Executive Order 13175

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

FSA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill.

Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions of State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) for State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector. In addition, CCC is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

Federal Domestic Assistance Program

The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to which this rule applies is the Conservation Reserve Program—10.069.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The regulations in this rule are exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), as specified in section 2608 of the 2014 Farm Bill, which provides that these regulations be promulgated and the program administered without regard to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

E-Government Act Compliance

CCC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 718

Acreage allotments, Drug traffic control, Loan programs-agriculture, Marketing quotas, Price support programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

7 CFR Part 1410

Administrative practice and procedure, Agriculture, Environmental protection, Grant programs—Agriculture, Natural resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Soil conservation, Technical assistance, Water resources, Wildlife.

For the reasons explained above, CCC and FSA amend 7 CFR parts 718 and 1410 as follows:

PART 718—PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO MULTIPLE PROGRAMS 1. Revise the authority for part 718 to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 1501-1524, 1921-2008r, 7201-7334, 7901-8002 and 9011-9097, 15 U.S.C. 714b and c, and 16 U.S.C. 3801-3847.

2. Revise § 718.1(a) to read as follows:
§ 718.1 Applicability.

(a) This part is applicable to all programs specified in chapters VII and XIV of this title that are administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and to any other programs that adopt this part by reference. This part governs how FSA administers marketing quotas, allotments, base acres, and acreage reports for those programs to which this part applies. The regulations to which this part applies are those that establish procedures for measuring allotments and program eligible acreage, for determining program compliance, farm reconstitutions, application of finality, and equitable relief from compliance or ineligibility.

3. Amend § 718.2 as follows: a. Revise the definitions for “Base acres”, “Entity”, and “Owner”; and b. Add, in alphabetical order, definitions for “Common land unit”, “Contiguous”, “Contiguous county”, “Contiguous county office”, “Double cropping”, “State committee”, and “Subsequent crop”; c. In the definition of “Crop reporting date”, remove the words “date the” and add the words “date upon which the” in their place; and d. In the definition of “Minor child”, add the words and punctuation “For the purpose of programs under chapters VII and XIV of this title,” before the word “State”.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 718.2 Definitions.

Base acres means, with respect to a covered commodity on a farm, the number of acres in effect on September 30, 2013, as defined in the regulations in part 1412, subpart B, of this title that were in effect on that date, subject to any reallocation, adjustment, or reduction. The term “base acres” includes any generic base acres as specified in part 1412 planted to a covered commodity as specified in part 1412.

Common land unit means the smallest unit of land that has an identifiable border and all of the following in common:

(1) Owner;

(2) Management;

(3) Cover; and

(4) Where applicable, producer association.

Contiguous means sharing any part of a boundary but not overlapping.

Contiguous county means a county contiguous to the reference county or counties.

Contiguous county office means the FSA county office that is in a contiguous county.

Double cropping means, as determined by the Deputy Administrator on a regional basis, consecutive planting of two specific crops that have the capability to be planted and carried to maturity for the intended uses, as reported by the producer, on the same acreage within a 12-month period. To be considered double cropping, the planting of two specific crops must be in an area where such double cropping is considered normal, or could be considered normal, for all growers under normal growing conditions and growers are typically able to repeat the same cycle successfully in a subsequent 12-month period.

Entity means a corporation, joint stock company, association, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, irrevocable trust, estate, charitable organization, or other similar organization, including any such organization participating in the farming operation as a partner in a general partnership, a participant in a joint venture, or a participant in a similar organization.

Owner means one who has legal ownership of farmland, including:

(1) Any agency of the Federal Government; however, such agency is not eligible to receive any program payment;

(2) One who is buying farmland under a contract for deed; or

(3) One who has a life-estate in the property.

State committee means the FSA State committee.

Subsequent crop means a crop following an initial crop that is not in an approved double cropping combination.

§ 718.3 [Amended]
4. Amend § 718.3 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(2), add the word “or” at the end; b. In paragraph (a)(3), remove the semicolon and add a period in its place; c. Remove paragraphs (a)(4), (5), and (6); and d. In paragraph (b), remove the references to “§ 718.108” and “§ 718.111” and add references to “§ 718.109” and “§ 718.112”, respectively in their place. 5. Revise § 718.7 to read as follows:
§ 718.7 Furnishing maps.

(a) A reasonable number, as determined by FSA, of reproductions of photographs, mosaic maps, and other maps will be made available to the owner of a farm, an insurance company reinsured by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), or a private party contractor performing official duties on behalf of FSA, CCC, and other USDA agencies.

(b) For all others, reproductions will be made available at the rate FSA determines will cover the cost of making such items available.

§ 718.8 [Amended]
6. Amend § 718.8(e) by removing the word “COC” and adding the words “county committee” in its place.
7. Amend § 718.9 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b) introductory text; and b. Add paragraph (f).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 718.9 Signature requirements.

(a) When a program authorized by this chapter or chapter XIV of this title requires the signature of a producer, landowner, landlord, or tenant, then a spouse may sign all such FSA or CCC documents on behalf of the other spouse, except as otherwise specified in this section, unless such other spouse has provided written notification to FSA and CCC that such action is not authorized. The notification must be provided to FSA for each farm.

(b) A spouse may not sign a document on behalf of the other spouse with respect to:

(f) Documents that were previously acted on and approved by the FSA county office or county committee will not subsequently be determined inadequate or invalid because of the lack of signature authority of any person signing the document on behalf of the applicant or any other individual, entity, general partnership, or joint venture, unless the person signing the program document knowingly and willfully falsified the evidence of signature authority or a signature. However, FSA may require affirmation of the document by those parties deemed appropriate for an affirmation, as determined by the Deputy Administrator. Nothing in this paragraph relieves participants of any other program requirements.

§ 718.101 [Amended]
8. Amend § 718.101(a)(1) by removing the reference to “§ 718.103” and adding a reference to “§ 718.104” in its place.
§ 718.102 [Amended]
9. Amend § 718.102 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the words “annually submit accurate information” and add the words “submit accurate information annually” in their place; b. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the words “the programs governed by part 1412 of this title” and add the words “programs for which eligibility for benefits is tied to base acres” in their place; c. In paragraph (b)(6), remove the word “intended”; d. Revise paragraphs (b)(7) and (c); and e. Add paragraph (d).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 718.102 Acreage reports.

(b) * * *

(7) All producers reporting acreage as prevented planted acreage or failed acreage must provide documentation that meets the provisions of § 718.103 to the FSA county office where the farm is administered.

(c) The annual acreage reports required in paragraph (a) of this section must be filed with the county committee by the farm operator, farm owner, producer of the crop on the farm, or duly authorized representative by the final reporting date applicable to the crop as established by the Deputy Administrator.

(d) Participants in programs to which this part is applicable must report all crops, in all counties, in which they have an interest. This includes crops on cropland and noncropland, including native or improved grass that will be hayed or grazed.

10. Amend § 718.103 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (b) and (c); b. Remove paragraphs (d) and (e); c. Redesignate paragraphs (f) and (g) as paragraphs (d) and (e); d. In newly redesignated paragraph (e), remove the words “shall apply” and add the word “applies” it their place; e. Add paragraphs (f) and (g); f. Remove paragraph (h); g. Redesignate paragraphs (i) through (n) as paragraphs (h) through (m), respectively; h. In newly redesignated paragraph (i), remove the words “the COC. The COC will” and add the words “the county committee. The county committee may” in their place; and i. In newly redesignated paragraph (m)(2), remove the word “and” at the end of the sentence and add the word “or” in its place.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 718.103 Prevented planted and failed acreage.

(b) FSA may approve acreage as “prevented planted acreage” if all other conditions for such approval are met and provided the conditions in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section are met.

(1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, producers must report the acreage, on forms specified by FSA, within 15 calendar days after the final planting date determined for the crop by FSA.

(2) If the acreage is reported after the period identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the application must be filed in time to permit:

(i) The county committee or its authorized representative to make a farm visit to verify eligible disaster conditions that prevented the specified acreage or crop from being planted; or

(ii) The county committee or its authorized representative the opportunity to determine, based on visual inspection, that the acreage or crop in question was affected by eligible disaster conditions such as damaging weather or other adverse natural occurrences that prevented the acreage or crop from being planted.

(3) A farm visit to inspect the acreage or crop is required for all late-filed acreage reports where prevented planting credit is sought. Under no circumstance may acreage reported after the 15-day period referenced in paragraph (b)(1) of this section be deemed acceptable unless the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) of this section are met. State and county committees do not have the authority to waive the field inspection and verification provisions for late-filed reports.

(4) All determinations made during field inspections must be documented on each late-filed acreage report, with results also recorded in county committee minutes to support the documentation.

(5) The acreage must have been prevented from being planted as the result of a natural disaster and not a management decision.

(6) The prevented planted acreage report was approved by the county committee. The county committee may disapprove prevented planted acreage credit if it is not satisfied with the documentation provided.

(c) To receive prevented planted credit for acreage, the producer must show to the satisfaction of FSA that the producer intended to plant the acreage. Documentation supporting such intent includes documents related to field preparation, seed purchase, and any other information that shows the acreage could and would have been planted and harvested absent the natural disaster or eligible cause of loss that prevented the planting.

(f) Acreage ineligible for prevented planting coverage includes, but is not limited to, acreage:

(1) With respect to which the planting history or conservation plans indicate it would remain fallow for crop rotation purposes;

(2) Used for conservation purposes or intended to be or considered to have been left unplanted under any program administered by USDA, including the Conservation Reserve and Wetland Reserve Programs;

(3) Not planted because of a management decision;

(4) Affected by the containment or release of water by any governmental, public, or private dam or reservoir project, if an easement exists on the acreage affected for the containment or release of water;

(5) Where any other person receives a prevented planted payment for any crop for the same crop year, unless the acreage meets all the requirements for double cropping under this part;

(6) Where pasture or other forage crop is in place on the acreage during the time that planting of the crop generally occurs in the area;

(7) Where another crop is planted (previous or subsequent) that does not meet the double cropping definition;

(8) Where any volunteer or cover crop is hayed, grazed, or otherwise harvested on the acreage for the same crop year;

(9) Where there is an inadequate supply of irrigation water beginning on the Federal crop insurance sale closing date for the previous crop year or the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) application closing date for the crop as specified in part 1437 of this title through the final planting date of the current year;

(10) On which a failure or breakdown of irrigation equipment or facilities, unless the failure or breakdown is due to a natural disaster;

(11) That is under quarantine imposed by a county, State, or Federal government agency;

(12) That is affected by chemical or herbicide residue, unless the residue is due to a natural disaster;

(13) That is affected by drifting herbicide;

(14) On which a crop was produced, but the producer was unable to obtain a market for the crop;

(15) Involving a planned planting of a “value loss crop” as that term is defined for NAP as specified in part 1437 of this title, including, but not limited to, Christmas trees, aquaculture, or ornamental nursery, for which NAP assistance is provided under value loss procedure;

(16) For which the claim for prevented planted credit relates to trees or other perennials unless the producer can prove resources were available to plant, grow, and harvest the crop, as applicable;

(17) That is affected by wildlife damage;

(18) Upon which, the reduction in the water supply for irrigation is due to participation in an electricity buy-back program, or the sale of water under a water buy-back or legislative changes regarding water usage, or any other cause which is not a natural disaster; or

(19) That is devoted to non-cropland.

(g) CCC may allow exceptions to acreage ineligible for prevented planting coverage when surface water or ground water is reduced because of a natural disaster (as determined by CCC).

§ 718.104 [Amended]
11. Amend § 718.104 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, remove words “date, and be considered timely filed, if” and add the words “date and processed by FSA if” in their place; b. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the words and punctuation “is in the field,” and add the words and punctuation “remains in the field, permitting FSA to verify and determine the acreage;” in their place; c. In paragraph (a)(2), add the words “amount of” in front of the word “acreage”; and d. In paragraph (b), remove the word “shall” and add the word “must” in its place.
§ 718.105 [Amended]
12. Amend § 718.105(c)(2) by removing the word “when” and adding the words “upon which” in its place.
13. Revise § 718.106 to read as follows:
§ 718.106 Non-compliance and false acreage reports.

(a) Participants who provide false or inaccurate acreage reports may be ineligible for some or all payments or benefits, subject to the requirements of § 718.102(b)(1) and (3).

(b) [Reserved]

14. Revise § 718.111 to read as follows:
§ 718.111 Notice of measured acreage.

(a) FSA will provide notice of measured acreage and mail it to the farm operator. This notice constitutes notice to all parties who have ownership, leasehold interest, or other interest in such farm.

(b) [Reserved]

15. Amend § 718.112 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a); and b. In paragraph (b), introductory text, remove the words “The county committee shall” and add the words “FSA will” in their place.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 718.112 Redetermination.

(a) A redetermination of crop acreage, appraised yield, or farm-stored production for a farm may be initiated by the county committee, State committee, or Deputy Administrator at any time. Redetermination may be requested by a producer with an interest in the farm if the producer pays the cost of the redetermination. The request must be submitted to FSA within 5 calendar days after the initial appraisal of the yield of a crop, or before the farm-stored production is removed from storage. A redeter­mina­tion will be undertaken in the manner prescribed by the Deputy Administrator. A redetermination will be used in lieu of any prior determination unless it is determined by the representative of the Deputy Administrator that there is good cause not to do so.

16. Revise the heading of subpart C to read as follows: Subpart C—Reconstitution of Farms, Allotments, Quotas, and Base Acres 17. Revise § 718.201(a), (c) introductory text, and (c)(1) to read as follows:
§ 718.201 Farm constitution.

(a) In order to implement FSA programs and monitor compliance with regulations, FSA must have records on what land is being farmed by a particular producer. This is accomplished by a determination of what land or group of lands “constitute” an individual unit or farm. Land that was properly constituted under prior regulations will remain so constituted until a reconstitution is required by paragraph (c) of this section. The constitution and identification of land as a “farm” for the first time and the subsequent reconstitution of a farm made thereafter will include all land operated by an individual entity or joint operation as a single farming unit except that it may not include:

(1) Land under separate ownership unless the owners agree in writing or have previously agreed in writing and the labor, equipment, accounting system, and management are operated in common by the operator, but separate from other tracts;

(2) Land under a lease agreement of less than 1 year duration;

(3) Federally owned land unless it is rangeland on which no crops are planted and on which there are no crop base acres established;

(4) State-owned wildlife lands unless the former owner has possession of the land under a leasing agreement;

(5) Land constituting a farm that is declared ineligible to be enrolled in a program under the regulations governing the program;

(6) For base acre crops, land located in counties that are not contiguous except where:

(i) Counties are divided by a river;

(ii) Counties do not share a common border because of a correction line adjustment; or

(iii) The land is within 20 miles, by road, of other land that will be a part of the farming unit;

(7) Land subject to either a default election or a valid election made under part 1412 of this title for each and all covered commodities constituted with land that has a different default election or valid election for each and all covered commodities, irrespective of whether or not any of the land has base acres; or

(8) Land subject to an election of individual coverage under the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program (ARC-IC) in any State constituted with any land in another State.

(c) A reconstitution of a farm either by division or by combination is required whenever:

(1) A change has occurred in the operation of the land since the last constitution or reconstitution and as a result of such change the farm does not meet the conditions for constitution of a farm as specified in paragraph (a) of this section, except that no reconstitution will be made if the county committee determines that the primary purpose of the change in operation is to establish eligibility to transfer allotments subject to sale or lease, or increase the amount of program benefits received;

18. Revise § 718.206 to read as follows:
§ 718.206 Determining farms, tracts, and base acres when reconstitution is made by division.

(a) The methods for dividing farms, tracts, and base acres are, in order of precedence: Estate, designation by landowner, cropland, and default. The proper method will be determined on a crop-by-crop basis.

(b) The estate method for reconstitution is the pro-rata distribution of base acres for a parent farm among the heirs in settling an estate. If the estate sells a tract of land before the farm is divided among the heirs, the base acres for that tract will be determined according to paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section.

(1) Base acres must be divided in accordance with a will, but only if the county committee determines that the terms of the will are such that a division can reasonably be made by the estate method.

(2) If there is no will or the county committee determines that the terms of a will are not clear as to the division of base acres, the base acres will be apportioned in the manner agreed to in writing by all interested heirs or devisees who acquire an interest in the property for which base acres have been established. An agreement by the administrator or executor will not be accepted in lieu of an agreement by the heirs or devisees.

(3) If base acres are not apportioned as specified in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, the base acres must be divided as specified in paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, as applicable.

(c) If the ownership of a tract of land is transferred from a parent farm, the transferring owner may request that the county committee divide the base acres, including historical acreage that has been double cropped, between the parent farm and the transferred tract, or between the various tracts if the entire farm is sold to two or more purchasers.

(1) If the county committee determines that base acres cannot be divided in the manner designated by the owner because the owner's designation does not meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section, FSA will notify the owner and permit the owner to revise the designation to meet the requirements. If the owner does not furnish a revised designation of base acres within a reasonable time after such notification, or if the revised designation does not meet the requirements, the county committee will divide the base acres in a pro-rata manner in accordance with paragraph (d) or (e) of this section.

(2) The landowner may designate a manner in which base acres are divided by filing a signed written memorandum of understanding of the designation of base acres with the county committee before the transfer of ownership of the land. Both the transferring owner and transferee must sign the written designation of base acres.

(i) Within 30 days after a prescribed form, letter, or notice of base acres is issued by FSA following the reconstitution of a farm but before any subsequent transfer of ownership of the land, all owners in existence at time of the reconstitution request may seek a different manner of base acre designation by agreeing in writing by executing a form CCC-517 or other designated form.

(ii) The landowner must designate the base acres that will be permanently reduced when the sum of the base acres exceeds the effective cropland plus double-cropped acres for the farm.

(iii) When the part of the farm from which the ownership is being transferred was owned for less than 3 years, the designation by landowner method of designating base acres cannot be used unless the county committee determines that the primary purpose of the ownership transfer was other than to retain or to sell base acres. In the absence of such a determination, and if the farm contains land that has been owned for less than 3 years, the part of the farm that has been owned for less than 3 years will be considered as a separate farm and the base acres must be assigned to that farm in accordance with paragraph (d) or (e) of this section. Such apportionment will be made prior to any designation of base acres with respect to the part that has been owned for 3 years or more.

(3) The designation by landowner method may be applied, at the owner's request, to land owned by an Indian Tribal Council that is leased to two or more producers for the production of any crop of a commodity for which base acres have been established. If the land is leased to two or more producers, an Indian Tribal Council may request that the county committee divide the base acres between the applicable tracts in the manner designated by the Council. The use of this method is not subject to the requirements specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.

(d) The cropland method for reconstitution is the pro-rata distribution of base acres to the resulting tracts in the same proportion that each resulting tract bears to the cropland for the parent tract. This method of division will be used if paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section do not apply.

(e) The default method for reconstitution is the separation of tracts from a farm with each tract maintaining the base acres attributed to the tract when the reconstitution is initiated.

(f) Farm program payment yields calculated for the resulting farms of a division may be increased or decreased if the county committee determines the method used did not provide an equitable distribution considering available land, cultural operations, and changes in the type of farming conducted on the farm. Any increase in the farm program payment yield on a resulting farm will be offset by a corresponding decrease on another resulting farm of the division.

19. Revise § 718.207 to read as follows:
§ 718.207 Determining base acres when reconstitution is made by combination.

(a) When two or more farms or tracts are combined for a year, that year's base acres, with respect to the combined farm or tract, as required by applicable program regulations, will not be greater than the sum of the base acres for each of the farms or tracts comprising the combination, subject to the provisions of § 718.204.

(b) [Reserved]

20. Amend § 718.301 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), add the punctuation and words “, as amended” at the end of the first sentence; b. Remove paragraph (b); c. Redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (b); and d. Add paragraph (c).

The addition reads as follows:

§ 718.301 Applicability.

(c) The relief provisions of this part cannot be used to extend a benefit or assistance not otherwise available under law or not otherwise available to others who have satisfied or complied with every eligibility or compliance requirement of the provisions of law or regulations governing the program benefit or assistance.

§ 718.302 [Amended]
21. In § 718.302, remove the definition of “Agricultural commodity”. 22. Revise § 718.303 to read as follows:
§ 718.303 Reliance on incorrect actions or information.

(a) Notwithstanding any other law, if an action or inaction by a participant is based upon good faith reliance on the action or advice of an authorized representative of an FSA county or State committee, and that action or inaction results in the participant's noncompliance with the requirements of a covered program that is to the detriment of the participant, then that action or inaction still may be approved by the Deputy Administrator as meeting the requirements of the covered program, and benefits may be extended or payments made in as specified in § 718.305.

(b) This section applies only to a participant who:

(1) Relied in good faith upon the action of, or information provided by, an FSA county or State committee or an authorized representative of such committee regarding a covered program;

(2) Acted, or failed to act, as a result of the FSA action or information; and

(3) Was determined to be not in compliance with the requirements of that covered program.

(c) This section does not apply to cases where the participant had sufficient reason to know that the action or information upon which they relied was improper or erroneous or where the participant acted in reliance on their own misunderstanding or misinterpretation of program provisions, notices or information.

23. Revise § 718.304 to read as follows:
§ 718.304 Failure to fully comply.

(a) When the failure of a participant to fully comply with the terms and conditions of a covered program precludes the providing of payments or benefits, relief may be authorized as specified in § 718.305 if the participant made a good faith effort to comply fully with the requirements of the covered program.

(b) This section only applies to participants who are determined by FSA to have made a good faith effort to comply fully with the terms and conditions of the covered program and have performed substantial actions required for program eligibility.

24. Amend § 718.306 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(2) and (4), and (b); and b. Add paragraph (c).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 718.306 Finality.

(a) A determination by an FSA State or county committee (or employee of such committee) becomes final on an application for benefits and binding 90 days from the date the application for benefits has been filed, and supporting documentation required to be supplied by the producer as a condition for eligibility for the particular program has been filed, unless any of the following exceptions exist:

(2) The determination was in any way based on erroneous, innocent, or purposeful misrepresentation; false statement; fraud; or willful misconduct by or on behalf of the participant;

(4) The participant knew or had reason to know that the determination was erroneous.

(b) Should an erroneous determination become final under the provisions of this section, the erroneous decision will be corrected according to paragraph (c) of this section.

(1) If, as a result of the erroneous decision, payment was issued, no action will be taken by FSA, CCC, or a State or county committee to recover unearned payment amounts unless one or more of the exceptions in paragraph (a) of this section applies;

(2) If payment was not issued before the error was discovered, the payment will not be issued. FSA and CCC are under no obligation to issue payments or render decisions that are contrary to law or regulation.

(c) FSA and CCC will modify and correct determinations when errors are discovered. As specified in paragraph (b) of this section, FSA or CCC may be precluded from recovering unearned payments that issued as a result of the erroneous decision. FSA or CCC's inability to recover or demand refunds of unearned amounts as specified in paragraph (b) will only be effective through the year in which the error was found and communicated to the participant.

25. Amend § 718.307 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, remove the words “an SED” and add the words “an SED, after consultation with and approval from OGC but” in their place, and remove the reference to “§§ 718.303 and 718.304” and add a reference to “§§ 718.303 through 718.305” in its place; b. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the word “person” and add the word “participant” in its place; c. In paragraph (a)(3), remove the words “in that year”; d. In paragraph (a)(4), remove the words “the SED (or the SED's predecessor)” and add the words “an SED” in their place; e. Revise paragraph (d); and f. In paragraph (e), remove the last sentence.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 718.307 Special relief approval authority for State Executive Directors.

(d) Relief may not be provided by the SED under this section until a written opinion or written acknowledgment is obtained from OGC that grounds exist for determination that requirements for granting relief under § 718.303 or § 718.304 have been met, that the form of relief is authorized under § 718.305, and that the granting of the relief is within the lawful authority of the SED.

PART 1410—CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM 26. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1410 continues to read as follows: Authority:

15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c; 16 U.S.C. 3801-3847.

27. Revise § 1410.1(f) and (j) to read as follows:
§ 1410.1 Administration.

(f) Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, the suitability of land for permanent vegetative or water cover, factors for determining the likelihood of improved water quality, and adequacy of the planned practice to achieve desired objectives will be determined by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) or other sources approved by the Deputy Administrator, in accordance with the Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) of NRCS or other guidelines deemed appropriate by NRCS. In no case will such determination compel the Deputy Administrator to execute a contract that the Deputy Administrator does not believe will serve the purposes of CRP established by this part. Any approved technical authority will use CRP guidelines established by the Deputy Administrator.

(j) Except as agreed by CCC and the participant together, the regulations in this part apply to all contracts approved after July 16, 2015.

28. Amend § 1410.2 as follows: a. In paragraphs (a) and (b), introductory text, remove the words “shall be” each time they appear and add the word “are” in their place, b. Amend paragraph (b) as follows: i. Add, in alphabetical order, definitions for “Agricultural Conservation Easement Program”, “Common grazing practices”, “Forb”, “Grassland”, “Improved rangeland or pastureland”, “Nesting season”, “Pastureland”, “Rangeland”, “Shrubland”, and “Veteran farm or rancher”; ii. Revise the definitions for “Conservation plan”, “Conserving use”, “Considered planted”, “Erodibility Index”, “Highly Erodible Land”, “Infeasible to farm”, and “Local FSA Office”; and iii. Remove the definitions of “Beginning farmer or rancher”, “Cropped wetlands”, “Farmed wetlands”, “Limited resource farmer or rancher”, “Merchantable timber”, “Present value”, “Private non-industrial forest land”, “Private non-industrial forest landowner”, “Water Bank Program (WBP)”, and “Wetlands farmed under natural conditions”.

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 1410.2 Definitions.

(b) * * *

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program means the program that provides for the establishment of wetland easements on land under subtitle H of Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended by section 2301 of the Agricultural Act of 2014.

Common grazing practices means grazing practices, including those related to forage and seed production, common to the area of the subject ranching or farming operation. Included are routine management activities necessary to maintain the viability of forage or browse resources that are common to the locale of the subject ranching or farming operation.

Conservation plan means a record of the participant's decisions and supporting information for treatment of a unit of land or water, and includes a schedule of operations, activities, and estimated expenditures needed to solve identified natural resource problems by devoting eligible land to permanent vegetative cover, trees, water, or other comparable measures. For grassland signup enrollments where grazing is occurring or is likely to occur, the conservation plan will contain provisions for common grazing practices and related activities consistent with achieving CRP purposes and maintaining the health and viability of grassland resources.

Conserving use means a use of land that meets crop rotation requirements, as specified by the Deputy Administrator, for: Alfalfa, multi-year grasses, and legumes planted during 2008 through 2013; for summer fallow during 2008 through 2013; or for land on which the contract expired during the period 2008 through 2013 and on which the grass cover required by the CRP contract continues to be maintained as though still enrolled. Land that meets this definition of “conserving use” will be considered to have been planted to an agricultural commodity for the purposes of eligibility specified in § 1410.6(a)(1).

Considered planted means land devoted to a conserving use during the crop year or during any of the 2 years preceding the crop year if the contract expired; cropland enrolled in CRP; or land for which the producer received insurance indemnity payment for prevented planting.

Erodibility index (EI), as prescribed by the Deputy Administrator, is an index used to determine the inherent erodibility from either from water or wind, but not both combined, of a soil in relation to the soil loss tolerance for that soil.

Forb means any herbaceous plant other than those in the grass family.

Grassland means land on which the vegetation is dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, shrubs, or forbs, including shrubland, land that contains forbs, pastureland, and rangeland, and improved pastureland and rangeland, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

Highly Erodible Land (HEL) means land determined to have an EI equal to or greater than 8 on the acreage offered, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

Improved rangeland or pastureland means grazing land permanently producing naturalized forage species that receives varying degrees of periodic cultural treatment to enhance forage quality and yields and is primarily consumed by livestock.

Infeasible to farm means an area of land that is too small or isolated to be economically farmed, or is otherwise suitable for such classification, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

Local FSA office means the FSA county office serving the area in which the FSA records are located for the farm or ranch.

Nesting season means the nesting season for birds in the local area that are economically significant, in significant decline, or conserved in accordance with Federal or State law, as determined by the Deputy Administrator in consultation with the State technical committee established as specified in part 610 of this title.

Pastureland means grazing lands comprised of introduced or domesticated native forage species that are used primarily for the production of livestock. These lands receive periodic renovation and cultural treatments, such as tillage, aeration, fertilization, mowing, and weed control, and may be irrigated. This term does not include lands that are in rotation with crops.

Rangeland means a land cover or use category with a climax or potential plant cover composed principally of native grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing and browsing, and introduced forage species that are managed like rangeland. Rangeland includes lands re-vegetated naturally or artificially when routine management of that vegetation is accomplished mainly through manipulation of grazing. This term includes areas where introduced hardy and persistent grasses are planted and such practices as deferred grazing, burning, chaining, and rotational grazing are used with little or no chemicals or fertilizer being applied. Grassland, savannas, many wetlands, some deserts, and tundra are considered to be rangeland. Certain communities of low forbs and shrubs, such as mesquite, chaparral, mountain shrub, and pinyon juniper are also included as rangeland.

Shrubland means land where the dominant plant species are shrubs, which are plants that are persistent, have woody stems, and a relatively low growth habit.

Veteran farmer or rancher means a farmer or rancher who has served in the Armed Forces, as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(10), and who either:

(1) Has not operated a farm or ranch; or

(2) Has operated a farm or ranch for not more than 10 years.

29. Revise § 1410.4 to read as follows:
§ 1410.4 Maximum county acreage.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and certain shelterbelts, windbreaks, and wet and saturated soils enrolled under ACEP, the maximum cropland acreage that may be placed in the CRP and the wetland reserve easements of WRP and ACEP, as appropriate, may not exceed 25 percent of the total cropland in the county. No more than 10 percent of the cropland in a county may be subject, in the aggregate, to a CRP or wetland reserve easement.

(b) The restrictions in paragraph (a) of this section may be waived by the Deputy Administrator as follows:

(1) If the Deputy Administrator determines that such action would not adversely affect the local economy of the county and that operators in the county are having difficulties complying with conservation plans implemented under part 12 of this title; or

(2) Cropland in a county enrolled under provisions as specified in § 1410.30 or § 1410.50 may be excluded from the restrictions in paragraph (a) of this section, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, provided that the county government concurs.

(c) These restrictions on participation are in addition to any other restriction imposed by law.

§ 1410.5 [Amended]
30. Amend § 1410.5 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(2)(iii), remove the words “are such that”; b. Remove paragraph (b); c. Redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (b); and d. In newly redesignated paragraph (b), remove the words “beginning or socially disadvantaged” and add the words “beginning, socially disadvantaged, or veteran” in their place. 31. Amend § 1410.6 as follows: a. Revise paragraph (a)(1); b. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), remove the words “in a CREP for similar water quality purposes as determined by CCC” and add the words “under a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) agreement for similar water quality purposes as determined by the Deputy Administrator” in their place; c. Revise paragraph (a)(3); d. Add paragraph (a)(4); e. Remove paragraph (b)(2) and redesignate paragraphs (b)(3) through (10) as paragraphs (b)(2) through (9), respectively; f. Revise newly designated paragraphs (b)(2) and (3); g. In newly redesignated paragraph (b)(4), add the words “as determined by the Deputy Administrator” at the end; h. In newly designated paragraph (b)(5), remove the word “CCC” each times it appears and add the words “Deputy Administrator” in its place; i. Revise newly designated paragraph (b)(6); j. Remove paragraphs (b)(11) and (12) and redesignate paragraph (b)(13) as paragraph (b)(10); k. In newly designated paragraph (b)(10), remove the period at the end of the paragraph and add the words and punctuation “; or” in its place; l. Add paragraph (b)(11); m. Revise paragraph (c); and n. Add paragraph (d).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 1410.6 Eligible land.

(a) * * *

(1) Cropland that is subject to a conservation plan and has been annually planted or considered planted, as defined in § 1410.2, to an agricultural commodity in 4 of the 6 crop years from 2008 through 2013, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, including field margins that are incidental to the planting of crops if:

(i) Including such field margins is determined appropriate by the Deputy Administrator; and

(ii) The field margins are physically and legally capable of being planted in a normal manner to an agricultural commodity, as determined by the Deputy Administrator; or

(3) Acreage enrolled in CRP during the final year of the CRP contract, provided the scheduled expiration date of the current CRP contract is before the effective date the new CRP contract, as determined by the CCC; or

(4) Grassland as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) * * *

(2) Be non-irrigated or irrigated cropland that would facilitate a net savings in groundwater or surface water of the agricultural operation of the producer, only as determined by, and only when specifically authorized by, the Deputy Administrator;

(3) Be land in a portion of a field not enrolled in CRP, if either:

(i) More than 50 percent of the remainder of the field is enrolled as a buffer or filterstrip practice; or

(ii) More than 75 percent of the field is enrolled as a conservation practice other than a buffer or filterstrip; and

(iii) With respect to both paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, the remainder portion of the field is determined to be infeasible to farm, as defined in § 1410.2, and enrolled at an annual payment rate not to exceed the maximum annual calculated soil rental rate, as determined by the Deputy Administrator;

(6) Be non-irrigated or irrigated cropland that produces or serves as the recharge area for saline seeps, or acreage that is functionally related to such saline seeps, or where a rising water table contributes to increased levels of salinity at or near the ground surface, as determined by the Deputy Administrator;

(11) Land that meets other continuous signup land eligibility criteria, as established by the Deputy Administrator.

(c) For land to be eligible under a grassland signup as specified in § 1410.30, the land must, as established by the Deputy Administrator:

(1) Not be cropland or marginal pastureland at the time of enrollment as grassland. Land enrolled under an expiring CRP contract may be eligible to be re-enrolled as grassland during the final year of the CRP contract, provided the scheduled expiration date of the current CRP contract is the day before the effective date of the new CRP contract, and suitable grass, legume, forb or shrub covers predominate, and;

(2) Be needed and suitable for enrollment as grassland following a determination that such land:

(i) Contain forbs or shrubland, including improved rangeland and pastureland, for which grazing is the predominant use;

(ii) Is located in an area historically dominated by grassland;

(iii) Is able to provide habitat for animal and plant populations of significant ecological value if the land is retained in its current use or restored to a natural condition; and

(iv) Meets other grassland signup land eligibility criteria as may be established by the Deputy Administrator.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, land will be ineligible for enrollment if, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, the land is one of the following:

(1) Federally-owned land, unless the applicant has a lease for the contract period;

(2) Land on which the use of the land is either restricted through deed or other restriction prior to enrollment in CRP prohibiting the production of agricultural commodities, or requires any resource-conserving measures, during any part of the proposed contract term;

(3) Land already enrolled in the CRP, unless authorized by § 1410.6(a)(3), as determined by the Deputy Administrator;

(4) Land for which Tribal, State, or other locals laws, ordinances, or other regulations require any resource conserving or environmental protection measures or practices and the owners or operators of such land have been notified in writing of such requirements; or

(5) Land that is required to be used, or otherwise dedicated to mitigate actions undertaken, or planned to be undertaken, on other land, or to mitigate other actions taken by landowners or operators, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

32. Revise § 1410.7 to read as follows:
§ 1410.7 Duration of contracts.

(a) Contracts with land devoted to hardwood trees, shelterbelts, windbreaks, or wildlife corridors will be for a term of 10 years to 15 years, as requested by the applicant.

(b) Other general and continuous signup contracts under this part will be for a term of 10 to 15 years, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

(c) Grassland signup contracts will be for a term of 15 years.

(d) All contracts will expire on September 30 of the final calendar year of the contract.

§ 1410.8 [Amended]
33. Amend § 1410.8 as follows: a. In paragraph (b), remove the word “CCC” and add the words “Deputy Administrator” in its place and remove the number “33” and add the number “25” in its place; b. In paragraph (d), introductory text, remove the word “shall” and add the word “will” in its place and add the words “before 5 years” at the end of the paragraph; and c. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the word “By” and add the words “As determined appropriate by” in its place.
§ 1410.9 [Removed]
34. Remove § 1410.9. 35. Revise § 1410.10(a) to read as follows:
§ 1410.10 Restoration of wetlands.

(a) An owner or operator who entered into a CRP contract on land that is suitable for restoration to wetlands or that was restored to wetlands while under such contract, may, if approved by the Deputy Administrator, subject to any restrictions as may be imposed by law, apply to transfer such acres that are devoted to an approved cover from CRP to a wetland reserve easement under WRP or ACEP, as appropriate. Transferred acreage will be terminated from CRP effective the day a WRP or ACEP wetland reserve easement is filed. Participants will receive a prorated CRP annual payment for the part of the year the acreage was enrolled in CRP as specified in § 1410.42. Cost-share payments or applicable incentive payments need not be refunded unless specified by the Deputy Administrator.

36. Amend § 1410.11 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(2), remove the words “to receive flow from a row crop agricultural drainage system” and add the words “so as to receive surface and subsurface flow from row crop agricultural production” in their place; and b. Revise paragraph (d) introductory text.

The revision reads as follows:

§ 1410.11 Farmable Wetlands Program.

(d) Total enrollment in CRP under this section may not exceed 750,000 acres. In addition, the maximum size of land enrolled under this section may not exceed, as determined by the Deputy Administrator:

§ 1410.12 [Removed]
37. Remove § 1410.12. 38. Add § 1410.13 to read as follows:
§ 1410.13 Grassland enrollments.

(a) Land may be enrolled in CRP under grassland signup as specified in §§ 1410.6, 1410.30, and 1410.31. Eligible grassland includes grassland that was previously enrolled in the Grassland Reserve Program, as specified in part 1415 of this chapter.

(b) Grassland enrollments will generally be administered under all the provisions of this part, except where specific provisions apply only to grassland enrollments.

(c) Grassland enrolled in CRP is eligible for the Transition Incentives Program as specified in § 1410.64.

(d) Grassland previously enrolled in rental contracts under terms of the Grassland Reserve Program specified in part 1415 of this chapter will continue to be subject to the provisions of those contracts.

39. Amend § 1410.22 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (a) and (b); b. In paragraph (c), remove the word “shall” and add the words “or forest stewardship plan must” in its place; and c. Revise paragraph (f).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 1410.22 CRP conservation plan.

(a) The producer must obtain a CRP conservation plan that complies with CCC guidelines and is approved by the conservation district for the land to be entered in CRP. If the conservation district declines to review the CRP conservation plan, or disapproves the conservation plan, such approval may be waived by the Deputy Administrator.

(b) The practices and management activities included in the CRP conservation plan and agreed to by the participant must cost-effectively reduce erosion necessary to maintain the productive capability of the soil, improve water quality, protect wildlife or wetlands, protect a public well head, improve grassland, or achieve other environmental benefits as applicable. The producer must undertake management activities on the land as needed throughout the term of the CRP contract to implement the conservation plan.

(f) For general signup and continuous signup contracts except grasslands, mid-contract management must be conducted to implement management activities, such as disking and prescribed burning according to an approved conservation plan, as part of the CRP contractual obligation on all contracts entered into under general signup and continuous signup, as specified in § 1410.30.

§ 1410.23 [Amended]
40. Amend § 1410.23 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(1), remove the words “and permanent wildlife habitat” and add the words “permanent wildlife habitat, and grassland improvements” in their place; b. In paragraph (a)(3), remove the words “the program” and add the word “CRP” in their place; and c. In paragraph (b), remove the word “aquiculture” and add the word “aquaculture” in its place. 41. Revise § 1410.30 to read as follows:
§ 1410.30 Signup.

(a) Offers for contracts may be submitted only during signup periods as announced periodically by the Deputy Administrator, except that CCC may hold a continuous signup for land to be devoted to particular uses, as CCC deems necessary. Generally, continuous signup is limited to those offers that provide appropriate environmental benefits, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, or that would otherwise rank highly under § 1410.31(b) and include high priority practices such as filter strips, riparian buffers, shelterbelts, field windbreaks, living snow fences, grass waterways, shallow water areas for wildlife, salt-tolerant vegetation, and practices to benefit certain approved public wellhead protection areas.

(b) Grassland signups will be conducted year-round with periodic ranking periods, as determined by the Deputy Administrator. The eligible offers that rank the highest according to the environmental benefits ranking plan established under § 1410.31(e), as determined by the Deputy Administrator, will be accepted, provided sufficient acres and funds are available.

42. Amend § 1410.31 as follows: a. In paragraphs (a), (b) introductory text, (b)(7), and (d) introductory text and (d)(3), remove the words “the program” each time they appear and add the word “CRP” in their place; and b. Add paragraphs (e) and (f).

The additions read as follows:

§ 1410.31 Acceptability of offers.

(e) Grassland signup offers will be periodically batched, evaluated, and ranked on a competitive basis in which the offers selected will be those where the greatest environmental benefits relative to cost are generated, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, and further provided that:

(1) The offered land is eligible under §§ 1410.4 and 1410.6, as determined by the Deputy Administrator;

(2) The producer is eligible under § 1410.5;

(3) The producer accepts either the maximum payment rate the Deputy Administrator is willing to offer to enroll the acreage in CRP, or a lesser rate; and

(4) The offer ranks above the minimum ranking level applicable to each ranking period needed for offer acceptance, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

(5) Notwithstanding the preceding, acceptance or rejection of any grassland signup offers will be in the sole discretion of the Deputy Administrator and offers may be rejected for any reason as determined necessary and appropriate to accomplish the goals of CRP.

(f) In ranking and evaluating grassland signup offers, different factors, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, may be considered from time to time for priority purposes to accomplish the goals of CRP. Such factors may include, but are not limited to:

(1) Existence of expiring CRP or Grassland Reserve Program land;

(2) Existing grassland;

(3) Multi-species cover existence and predominance of native species;

(4) Livestock grazing operation;

(5) State priority enrollment criteria (non-land based) and State Focus Area (land-based) determined in consultation with State Technical Committee;

(6) Whether the applicant is an eligible beginning, veteran, or socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher; and

(7) Other factors as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

43. Amend § 1410.32 by revising paragraphs (c)(2), (f)(7), (g), and (h) to read as follows:
§ 1410.32 CRP contracts.

(c) * * *

(2) An offer to enroll land in CRP will be irrevocable for such period as is determined and announced by the Deputy Administrator. The producer will be liable to CCC for liquidated damages if the applicant revokes an offer during the period in which the offer is irrevocable, as determined by the Deputy Administrator. The Deputy Administrator may waive payment of such liquidated damages, if the Deputy Administrator determines that the assessment of such damages, in a particular case, is not in the best interest of CCC and CRP.

(f) * * *

(7) The Deputy Administrator determines that such a termination is needed in the public interest, or is otherwise necessary and appropriate to further the goals of CRP.

(g) Except as allowed and approved by the Deputy Administrator, where the new owner of land enrolled in CRP is a Federal agency that agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the terminated contract, the participant in a contract that has been terminated must refund all or part of the payments made with respect to the contract plus interest, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, and must pay liquidated damages as provided for in the contract. The Deputy Administrator may permit the amount to be repaid to be reduced to the extent that such a reduction will not impair the purposes of CRP. Further, a refund of all payments need not be required from a participant who is otherwise in full compliance with the CRP contract when the land is purchased by or for the United States, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

(h) During the final year of the CRP contract's term, the participants on a CRP contract will not be in violation of the terms of the contract if both the following are met:

(1) During the final year of the contract the land is enrolled in the Conservation Stewardship Program, and such enrollment is reported promptly to the Deputy Administrator; and

(2) The land management and conservation practice measures that are conducted under the Conservation Stewardship Program are not in violation of the approved CRP conservation plan and are otherwise consistent with this part, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

44. Amend § 1410.33 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(4), remove the words “beginning or socially disadvantaged” and add the words “beginning, socially disadvantaged, or veteran” in their place; and b. Add paragraphs (e) and (f).

The additions read as follows:

§ 1410.33 Contract modifications.

(e) CCC may terminate or modify a CRP contract when the land is transferred into WRP, ACEP, or other Federal or State programs, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

(1) For contracts terminated or modified for enrollment in other Federal or State programs, participants will not be required to repay CRP payments or pay interest and liquidated damages to CCC, as otherwise required for contract violations under § 1410.52, unless determined otherwise by the Deputy Administrator, with the following exception:

(2) Participants will be required to repay CRP Signing Incentive Payments and Practice Incentive Payments if land containing a wetland reserve easement is enrolled in ACEP.

(f) During the final year of the CRP contract's term, CCC will allow an owner or operator to make conservation and land improvements (resource conserving uses) for economic use that facilitate maintaining protection of enrolled land after expiration of the contract, but only under the following conditions:

(1) All provisions are identified in an approved CRP conservation plan;

(2) Land improved in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section will not be eligible to be re-enrolled in CRP for 5 years after the date of the expiration or termination of the contract; and

(3) CCC will reduce the final annual rental payment otherwise payable under the contract by an amount commensurate with the economic value of the resource conserving use activity carried out.

§ 1410.40 [Amended]
45. Amend § 1410.40 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the word “shall” and add the word “will” in its place and remove the word “CCC” and add the words “the Deputy Administrator” in its place; b. In paragraph (d)(1), remove the words “wellheads; and” and add the words “wellheads, grassland improvement, or other conservation measures, as determined by the Deputy Administrator; and” in their place; and c. In paragraphs (e) and (f), remove the word “shall” each time it appears and add the word “will” in its place. 46. Amend § 1410.41 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 1410.41 Levels and rates for cost share payments.

(a) As determined by the Deputy Administrator, CCC will not pay more than 50 percent of the actual or average cost of establishing eligible practices specified in the conservation plan. CCC may allow cost-share payments for maintenance costs, consistent with the provisions of § 1410.40 and the Deputy Administrator may determine the period and amount of such cost-share payments.

47. Amend § 1410.42 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (b) and (f) introductory text; b. In paragraphs (c) and (e), remove the word “shall” each time it appears and add the word “will” in its place; and c. Add paragraph (h).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 1410.42 Annual rental payments.

(b) Annual rental payments per acre include a payment based on a weighted average soil rental rate, marginal pastureland rental rate, or grassland rate, as appropriate, and an incentive payment as a portion of the annual payment for certain practices, as determined by the Deputy Administrator. In addition, a national maximum annual rental payment rate may also be established by the Deputy Administrator for certain categories of CRP offers and contracts.

(f) The Deputy Administrator will prepare a schedule for each county that shows the maximum soil rental rate CCC may pay which may be supplemented to reflect special contract requirements. As determined by the Deputy Administrator, such schedule will be calculated for cropland based on the relative productivity of soils within the county using NRCS data and local FSA average cash rental estimates. For marginal pastureland, rental rates will be based on estimates of the prevailing rental values of marginal pastureland in riparian areas. Grassland rental rates will be based on not more than 75 percent of the estimated grazing value of the land. The schedule will be available in the local FSA office and, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, will indicate, when appropriate, that:

(h) CCC may make tree thinning incentive payments to owners and operators of enrolled land in an amount sufficient to encourage proper tree thinning and other practices to improve the condition of resources, promote forest management, or enhance wildlife habitat on the land, as determined by the Deputy Administrator. Incentive payments for tree thinning and other tree stand practices will:

(1) Not exceed 150 percent of the total cost of the practice, as determined by the Deputy Administrator; and

(2) Only be available for practices outlined in the tree planting plan under the approved CRP conservation plan.

48. Revise § 1410.44 to read as follows:
§ 1410.44 Average adjusted gross income.

(a) Benefits under this part will not be available to persons or legal entities whose average adjusted gross income exceeds $900,000 for the 3 taxable years preceding the most immediately preceding complete taxable year, or who otherwise do not meet the AGI requirements specified in part 1400 of this chapter.

(b) [Reserved]

49. Amend § 1410.52 as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), add a comma after the word “contract”, and remove the word “together”; and b. Revise paragraph (c).

The revision reads as follows:

§ 1410.52 Violations.

(c) The Deputy Administrator may reduce a demand for a refund under this section to the extent the Deputy Administrator determines that such relief would be appropriate and will not deter the accomplishment of the goals of CRP.

50. Revise § 1410.53 to read as follows:
§ 1410.53 Executed CRP contract not in conformity with the regulations.

(a) If, after a CRP contract is approved by CCC, it is discovered that such CRP contract is found to contain material errors of fact or is not in conformity with this part, these regulations will prevail, and the Deputy Administrator may, at his or her sole discretion, terminate or modify the CRP contract, effective immediately or at a later date as the Deputy Administrator determines appropriate.

(b) [Reserved]

51. Amend § 1410.62 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 1410.62 Miscellaneous.

(g) As determined by the Deputy Administrator, incentives may be authorized to foster opportunities for Indian tribes and beginning, limited resource, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers and ranchers, and to enhance long-term environmental goals.

52. Amend § 1410.63 as follows: a. In paragraph (b)(2), add the word “and” at the end; b. In paragraph (b)(3), remove the words “plan; and” and add the word and punctuation “plan.” in their place; c. Remove paragraph (b)(4); d. Revise paragraph (c); and e. Add paragraphs (d) and (e).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 1410.63 Permissive uses.

(c) No barrier fencing or boundary limitations that prohibit wildlife access to or from the CRP acreage are allowed as part of any permissive use, unless required by State law.

(d) The following activities may be permitted, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, on CRP enrolled land insofar as they are consistent with the conservation purposes of CRP including timing, frequency, and duration as provided in an approved CRP conservation plan that identifies appropriate vegetative management requirements:

(1) Managed harvesting and other commercial uses, including managed harvesting of biomass, but only in exchange for a payment reduction of not less than 25 percent as determined by the Deputy Administrator, and only in accordance with vegetative management requirements, harvest period, and a harvest frequency developed in coordination with the State Technical committee and timing of harvesting activities outside the nesting season at least every 5 years, but not more than once every 3 years, and only as identified in an approved CRP conservation plan;

(2) Routine grazing in accordance with appropriate vegetative management requirements and stocking rates for the land, grazing frequency, and grazing periods outside the nesting season developed in coordination with the State Technical Committee, of not more than once every 2 years, and only as identified in an approved CRP conservation plan. Routine grazing will only be permitted in exchange for a payment reduction of not less than 25 percent, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, except that a beginning farmer or rancher may conduct routine grazing without payment reduction;

(3) Prescribed grazing for the control of invasive species in accordance with appropriate vegetative management requirements and stocking rates for the land, grazing frequency, and grazing periods outside the nesting season, and only as identified in an approved CRP conservation plan. Prescribed grazing will only be permitted in exchange for a payment reduction of not less than 25 percent, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, except that a beginning farmer or rancher may conduct prescribed grazing by without payment reduction;

(4) Harvesting, grazing, or other commercial use of the forage on the land in response to a drought, flooding, or other emergency, consistent with an approved CRP conservation plan;

(5) Wind turbines on CRP land installed in numbers and locations as determined appropriate by the Deputy Administrator considering the location, size, and other physical characteristics of the land, the extent to which the land contains threatened or endangered wildlife and wildlife habitat, and the purposes of CRP, but only in exchange for a payment reduction as determined by the Deputy Administrator;

(6) Spot grazing, if necessary for control of weed infestation, and not to exceed a 30-day period according to an approved conservation plan, but only in exchange for a payment reduction as determined by the Deputy Administrator;

(7) Intermittent and seasonal use of vegetative buffer practices incidental to agricultural production on lands adjacent to the buffer such that the permitted use does not destroy the permanent vegetative cover, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, only as identified in an approved CRP conservation plan, and in exchange for a payment reduction of not less than 25 percent;

(8) The sale of carbon, water quality, or environmental credits, as determined appropriate by CCC;

(9) When enrolled land is established to tree planting practices or otherwise converted to forestry uses, customary forestry activities are authorized such as, but not limited to, thinning and prescribed burning, in a manner consistent with the participant's conservation plan. Such activities must be designed to promote forest health, enhance wildlife habitat, and improve the general resource conditions of enrolled lands. An incentive payment is authorized as specified in § 1410.42(h).

(e) For land enrolled under a grassland signup type as authorized by § 1410.30(b) only, the following activities may also be permitted, as determined by the Deputy Administrator:

(1) Common grazing practices, including maintenance and necessary cultural practices, on the land in a manner that is consistent with maintaining the viability of grassland, forb, and shrub species appropriate to the locality;

(2) Haying, mowing, or harvesting for seed production subject to appropriate restrictions during the nesting season;

(3) Fire pre-suppression, fire-related rehabilitation, and construction of firebreaks;

(4) Grazing related activities, such as fencing and livestock watering facilities; and

(5) Other activities as determined by the Deputy Administrator, when the manner, number, intensity, location, operation, and other features associated with the activity will not adversely affect the grassland resources or related conservation values protected under a grassland CRP contract.

53. Amend § 1410.64 as follows: a. Revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(2), and (a)(6); b. In paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (b) introductory text and (b)(1), (c), (d), and (e), remove the words “beginning or” each time they appear and add the words “beginning, veteran, or” in their place; a. Revise paragraph (f); and c. Remove paragraph (g).

The revisions read as follows:

§ 1410.64 Transition Incentives Program.

(a) To be eligible for the Transition Incentives Program, the retired or retiring owner or operator must:

(2) Sell or lease (under a qualifying irrevocable lease of at least 5 years in length) expiring CRP land to a beginning, veteran, or socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher who will return some or all of the land to production using sustainable grazing or crop production methods;

(6) Allow the beginning, veteran, or socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher to install conservation practices and initiate land improvements, including preparing to plant a crop, that are consistent with the conservation plan during the last year of the contract.

(f) The eligible retired or retiring owner or operator and the eligible beginning, veteran, or socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher must agree to be jointly and severally responsible for complying with both the provisions of the Transition Incentives Program agreement and the provisions of this part, and must also agree to be jointly and severally responsible for any payment adjustments that may result from violations of the terms or conditions of the Transition Incentives Program agreement or this part.

§§ 1410.1, 1410.2, 1410.3, 1410.6, 1410.8, 1410.10, 1410.11, 1410.22, 1410.32, 1410.33, 1410.40, 1410.41, 1410.43, 1410.50, 1410.51, 1410.60, 1410.61, and 1410.62 [Amended]
54. In addition to the amendments set forth above, in 7 CFR part 1410, remove the word “CCC” each time it appears and add the words “the Deputy Administrator” in its place, in the following places: a. In § 1410.1(g), (h), and (i); b. In § 1410.2, in the definitions of “Agricultural commodity”, “Commercial pond-raised aquaculture facility”, “Field”, “Field windbreak, shelterbelt, and/or living snowfence”, “Offer”, “Offeror”, “Operator”, “Perennial crop”, and “Technical assistance”; c. In § 1410.3(b) and (d); d. In § 1410.6(a)(2); e. In § 1410.8(a); f. In § 1410.10(b); g. In § 1410.11(b) introductory text, (b)(1), (e), and (g); h. In § 1410.22(e); i. In § 1410.32(b)(3), (d) introductory text, and (f)(2); j. In § 1410.33(d); k. In § 1410.40(b) and (g); l. In § 1410.41(b) and (c); m. In § 1410.43; n. In § 1410.50(a); o. In § 1410.51(a)(1) and (c); p. In § 1410.60(a); q. In § 1410.61; and r. In § 1410.62(h). Val Dolcini, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, and Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2015-17317 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0086; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-191-AD; Amendment 39-18206; AD 2015-14-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A310-203 airplanes. This AD is intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. This AD was prompted by reports that side link clevis bolts of the front engine mount do not meet the design service goal (DSG) requirements on airplanes equipped with General Electric Company CF6-80A3 engines. This AD requires repetitive replacement of all side link clevis engine mount bolts. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the front engine mount, and consequent possible departure of the engine.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective August 20, 2015.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0086or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0086.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A310-203 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2015 (80 FR 8575). The NPRM is intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established structural maintenance program. The NPRM was prompted by reports that side link clevis bolts of the front engine mount do not meet the DSG requirements on airplanes equipped with General Electric Company CF6-80A3 engines. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive replacement of all side link clevis engine mount bolts. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the front engine mount, and consequent possible departure of the engine.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0191, dated August 29, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A310-203 airplanes. The MCAI states:

During fatigue analysis performed in the scope of the Extended Service Goal, taking into account the certification loads and the new lift-off loads, Airbus determined that side link clevis engine mount bolts do not meet the Design Service Goal (DSG) requirements on aeroplanes equipped with CF6-80A3 engines.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the front engine mount, possibly resulting in-flight separation of the engine from the aeroplane.

To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A310-71-2038 to introduce a life limit on the side link clevis engine mount bolts.

For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires implementation of the new life limit and replacement of all side link clevis engine mount bolts that have exceeded the new limit.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0086-0003.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 8575, February 18, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 8575, February 18, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 8575, February 18, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A310-71-2038, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 8, 2014. The service information describes procedures for replacement of all side link clevis bolts on the CF6-80A3 front engine mount and subsequent re-identification of the newly installed bolts with a cross (to differentiate them from the old ones). This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 142 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $2,900 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $194,610, or $14,970 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-0086; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-14-08 Airbus: Amendment 39-18206. Docket No. FAA-2015-0086; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-191-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective August 20, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports that side link clevis bolts of the front engine mount do not meet the Design Service Goal (DSG) requirements on airplanes equipped with General Electric Company CF6-80A3 engines. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the front engine mount, and consequent possible departure of the engine.

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

(g) Repetitive Bolt Replacement

Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the side link clevis bolts, nuts, and bushings of the front engine mount on both engines, and re-identify the new installed bolts with a cross (to differentiate them from the old ones), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-71-2038, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 8, 2014. Repeat the replacement thereafter at intervals not to exceed 29 years.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(i) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0191, dated August 29, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-0086-0003.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-71-2038, including Appendices 01 and 02, dated April 8, 2014.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 2, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-17202 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-23706; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-03-AD; Amendment 39-18177; AD 2015-12-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turboprop Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to all Honeywell International Inc. TPE331-1, -2, -2UA, -3U, -3UW, -5, -5A, -5AB, -5B, -6, -6A, -10, -10AV, -10GP, -10GT, -10P, -10R, -10T, -10U, -10UA, -10UF, -10UG, -10UGR, -10UR, -11U, -12JR, -12UA, -12UAR, and -12UHR turboprop engines with certain Honeywell part numbers (P/Ns) of Woodward fuel control unit (FCU) assemblies, installed. The AD number in the document headings is incorrect. Additionally, the Amendment number in the regulatory text is incorrect. This document corrects these two errors. In all other respects, the original document remains the same.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on July 22, 2015. The effective date of AD 2015-12-04, Amendment 39-18177 (80 FR 34534, June 17, 2015) remains July 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

AD 2015-12-04, Amendment 39-18177, 80 FR 34534, June 17, 2015), requires initial and repetitive dimensional inspections of the affected fuel control drives and insertion of certain airplane operating procedures into the applicable flight manuals.

As published, the AD number in the document headings is incorrect. Additionally, the Amendment number in the regulatory text of AD 2015-12-04 is incorrect.

No other part of the final rule has been changed.

The effective date of AD 2015-12-04 remains July 22, 2015.

Correction of Non-Regulatory Text

In the Federal Register of June 17, 2015, AD 2015-12-04; Amendment 39-18177 (80 FR 34534) is corrected as follows:

On page 34534, in the 2nd column, on line 6, change “2014-12-04” to “2015-12-04”.

Correction of Regulatory Text
§ 39.13 [Corrected]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2006-15-08, Amendment 39-14688 (71 FR 41121, July 20, 2006), and adding the following new AD: 2015-12-04 Honeywell International Inc.: Amendment 39-18177; Docket No. FAA-2006-23706; Directorate Identifier 2006-NE-03-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective August 20, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2006-15-08, Amendment 39-14688 (71 FR 41121, July 20, 2006).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to all Honeywell International Inc. TPE331-1, -2, -2UA, -3U, -3UW, -5, -5A, -5AB, -5B, -6, -6A, -10, -10AV, -10GP, -10GT, -10P, -10R, -10T, -10U, -10UA, -10UF, -10UG, -10UGR, -10UR, -11U, -12JR, -12UA, -12UAR, and -12UHR turboprop engines with Honeywell part numbers (P/Ns) for Woodward fuel control unit (FCU) assemblies listed in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, installed.

Table 1 to Paragraph (c)—Affected FCU Assembly P/Ns Group No. Engine FCU Assembly P/Ns 1 TPE331-1, -2, and -2UA P/N 869199-13, -20, -21, -22, -23, -24, -25, -26, -27, -28, -29, -31, -32, -33, -34, and -35. 2 * TPE331-1, -2, and -2UA P/N 869199-9, -10, -11, -12, -14, -16, -17, and -18. 3 TPE331-3U, -3UW, -5, -5A, -5AB, -5B, -6, -6A, -10AV, -10GP, -10GT, -10P, and -10T P/N 893561-7, -8, -9, -10, -11, -14, -15, -16, -20, -26, -27, and -29; or
  • P/N 897770-1, -3, -7, -9, -10, -11, -12, -14, -15, -16, -25, -26, and -28.
  • 4 * TPE331-3U, -3UW, -5, -5B, -6, -6A, and -10T P/N 893561-4, -5, -12, and -13 or P/N 897770-5, -8, and -13. 5 TPE331-10, -10R, -10U, -10UA, -10UF, -10UG, -10UGR, -10UR, -11U, -12JR, -12UA, -12UAR, and -12UHR P/N 897375-2, -3, -4, -5, -8, -9, -10, -11, -12, -13, -14, -15, -16, -17, -19, -21, -24, -25, -26, and -27; or
  • P/N 897780-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9, -10, -11, -14, -15, -16, -17, -18, -19, -20, -21, -22, -23, -24, -25, -26, -27, -30, -32, -34, -36, -37, and -38; or
  • P/N 893561-17, -18, and -19.
  • * New/added FCU assembly P/Ns
    (d) Unsafe Condition

    We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the fuel control drive that could result in damage to the engine and airplane.

    (e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (1) Inspection of Engines With FCU Assembly P/Ns in Groups 2 and 4

    For FCU assembly P/Ns in Groups 2 and 4 listed in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:

    (i) At the next scheduled inspection of the fuel control drive, or within 500 hours-in-service (HIS) after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the fuel control drive for wear.

    (ii) Thereafter, re-inspect the fuel control drive within every 1,000 HIS since-last-inspection (SLI).

    (2) Inspection of Engines With FCU Assembly P/Ns in Groups 1, 3, and 5

    For FCU assembly P/Ns in Groups 1, 3, or 5 listed in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:

    (i) If on the effective date of this AD the FCU assembly has 950 or more HIS SLI, inspect the fuel control drive for wear within 50 HIS from the effective date of this AD.

    (ii) If on the effective date of this AD the FCU assembly has fewer than 950 HIS SLI, inspect the fuel control drive for wear before reaching 1,000 HIS.

    (iii) Thereafter, re-inspect the fuel control drive for wear within every 1,000 HIS SLI.

    (3) Airplane Operating Procedures

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, insert the information in Figure 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD, into the Emergency Procedures Section of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), Pilot Operating Handbook (POH), and the Manufacturer's Operating Manual (MOM).

    ER16JY15.000 (f) Optional Terminating Action

    Replacing the affected FCU assembly with an FAA-approved FCU assembly P/N not listed in this AD is terminating action for the initial and repetitive inspections required by this AD, and for inserting the information in Figure 1 to paragraph (e) of this AD into the AFM, POH, and MOM.

    (g) Definitions

    For the purposes of this AD:

    (1) The “fuel control drive” is a series of mating splines located between the fuel pump and fuel control governor.

    (2) The fuel control drive consists of four drive splines: the fuel pump internal spline, the fuel control external “quill shaft” spline, and the stub shaft internal and external splines.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.

    (i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected].

    (2) Information pertaining to operating recommendations for affected engines after a fuel control drive failure is contained in Honeywell International Inc., Operating Information Letter (OIL) OI331-12R6, dated May 26, 2009, for multi-engine airplanes; and in OIL OI331-18R4, dated May 26, 2009, for single-engine airplanes. Information on fuel control drive inspection can be found in Section 72-00-00 of the applicable TPE331 maintenance manuals. These Honeywell International Inc., OILs and the TPE331 maintenance manuals, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD, can be obtained from Honeywell International Inc., using the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; Internet: https://myaerospace.honeywell.com/wps/portal/!ut; phone: 800-601-3099.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 26, 2015. Ann C. Mollica, Acting Directorate Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16587 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-1123; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-037-AD; Amendment [39-18209; AD 2015-06-02 R1] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are revising an airworthiness directive (AD) 2015-06-02 for GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Model GA8-TC320 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as missing required engine mount fire seal washers, which could reduce the engine retention capability in the event of a fire. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective August 20, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of April 24, 2015 (80 FR 14810, March 20, 2015).

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1123; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd, c/o GippsAero Pty Ltd, Attn: Technical Services, P.O. Box 881, Morwell Victoria 3840, Australia; telephone: + 61 03 5172 1200; fax: +61 03 5172 1201; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.gippsaero.com/customer-support/technical-publications.aspx. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1123.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to add an AD that would apply to GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd Model GA8-TC320 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015 (74 FR 21193), and proposed to revise AD 2015-06-02, Amendment 39-18120 (80 FR 14810; March 20, 2015).

    The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information originated by an airworthiness authority of another country. The MCAI states that:

    A recent review of the engine mount installation on the GA8-TC 320 aircraft has highlighted the omission of engine mount fire seal washers during the assembly process.

    The current engine mount configuration does not meet the certification basis for the aircraft, specifically regulation 23.865 of the Federal Aviation Regulations of the United States of America, where engine mounts located in designated fire zones are required to be suitably shielded so that they are capable of withstanding the effects of a fire.

    The Gippsland Aeronautics GA8-TC 320 aircraft require the installation of an approved steel washer at each of the engine mount locations to address a potential risk of reduced engine retention capability in the event of a fire.

    This AD, AD/GA8/8 Amdt 1, amends the applicability statement to be inclusive of the affected aircraft serial number range.

    The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1123-0007.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (74 FR 21193, April 17, 2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (74 FR 21193, April 17, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (74 FR 21193, April 17, 2015).

    Relative Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2014-115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014. The service bulletin describes procedures for inspecting the orientation of the engine isolator mounts to verify proper installation, re-installing if necessary, and installing steel washers on the forward side of each side of the engine isolator mounts. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1123; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-18120 (80 FR 14810, March 20, 2015), and adding the following new AD: 2015-06-02 R1 GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd: Amendment 39-18209; Docket No. FAA-2014-1123; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-037-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August 20, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 2015-06-02, Amendment 39-18120 (80 FR 14810; March 20, 2015).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd GA8-TC320 airplanes, all serial numbers up to and including GA8-TC 320-14-205, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 71: Power Plant.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as missing required engine mount fire seal washers, which could reduce the engine retention capability in the event of a fire. We are issuing this AD to revise the applicable airplane serial numbers and to detect and correct the omission of steel washers at each isolator mount location, which, if not corrected, could result in reduced engine retention capability in the event of a fire.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, comply with this AD within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD:

    (1) Within the next 300 hours time-in-service after April 24, 2015 (the effective date retained from AD 2015-22-14) or within the next 12 months after April 24, 2015 (the effective date retained from AD 2015-22-14), whichever occurs first, inspect the orientation of the engine isolator mounts to verify that the mounts have been installed properly following the Accomplishment Instructions in GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2014-115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014.

    (2) Before reinstalling the engine isolator mounts following the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, install a part number J-2218-61 steel washer on the forward side of each of the four engine isolator mounts, following the Accomplishment Instructions in GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2014-115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014.

    (3) If during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, any of the engine isolator mounts are found to not comply with the specifications found in the Accomplishment Instructions of GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2014-115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014, before further flight, re-install the isolators to the correct orientation, or if damage is found, replace with airworthy parts.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) AD No. AD/GA8/8, Amdt 1, dated March 26, 2015. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1123-0007.

    (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on April 24, 2015 (80 FR 14810, March 20, 2015).

    (i) GippsAero Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-GA8-2014-115, Issue 1, dated October 6, 2014.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (4) For GippsAero service information identified in this AD, contact GA 8 Airvan (Pty) Ltd, c/o GippsAero Pty Ltd, Attn: Technical Services, P.O. Box 881, Morwell Victoria 3840, Australia; telephone: + 61 03 5172 1200; fax: +61 03 5172 1201; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.gippsaero.com/customer-support/technical-publications.aspx.

    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-1123.

    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 7, 2015. Earl Lawrence, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17193 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0926; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-085-AD; Amendment 39-18204; AD 2015-14-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an analysis, which indicated that in a limited flight envelope with specific conditions, divergent flutter could occur during a high g-load maneuver in combination with certain system failures. This AD requires replacing the lateral control electronic (LCE) modules, replacing the inboard elevator power control packages (PCPs), installing new external compensators for the PCPs, and revising the maintenance or inspection program. We are issuing this AD to prevent certain system failures from resulting in divergent flutter, and subsequent loss of continued safe flight and landing.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective August 20, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0926.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0926; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Tsuji, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6546; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2014 (79 FR 75100). The NPRM was prompted by an analysis, which indicated that in a limited flight envelope with specific conditions, divergent flutter could occur during a high g-load maneuver in combination with certain system failures. The NPRM proposed to require replacing the LCE modules, replacing the inboard elevator PCPs, installing new external compensators for the PCPs, and revising the maintenance or inspection program. We are issuing this AD to prevent certain system failures from resulting in divergent flutter, and subsequent loss of continued safe flight and landing.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We have considered the comment received. Boeing supported the NPRM (79 FR 75100, December 17, 2014).

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 75100, December 17, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 75100, December 17, 2014).

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information.

    • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2506, dated February 3, 2014, which describes procedures for replacing the LCE modules.

    • Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2513, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2014, which describes procedures for installing the inboard elevator compensator and replacing the PCP.

    We have also reviewed Boeing 747-8/8F Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs) Document D011U721-02-03, Revision December 2013, which contains the following tasks in Section G., “CMR Tasks”:

    • Item Number 27-CMR-10, “Lubricate inboard elevator hinge bearings.”

    • Item Number 27-CMR-11, “Functional check of inboard elevator hinge bearing and power control unit rod end bearing free play.”

    This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Replacement of LCEs 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 $0 $340 $2,720 Replacement of inboard elevator PCPs and installation of external inboard elevator compensators 57 work-hours × $85 per hour = $4,845 44,894 49,739 397,912 Revision to maintenance or inspection program 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 0 85 680

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S. C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-14-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18204; Docket No. FAA-2014-0926; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-085-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 20, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2506, dated February 3, 2014.

    (2) Model 747-8 and 747-8F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2513, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2014.

    (3) Model 747-8 series airplanes that are operated less than 1,200 flight hours per calendar year.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an analysis, which indicated that in a limited flight envelope with specific conditions, divergent flutter could occur during a high g-load maneuver in combination with certain system failures. We are issuing this AD to prevent certain system failures from resulting in divergent flutter, and subsequent loss of continued safe flight and landing.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) Replacement of Lateral Control Electronic (LCE) Modules

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the LCE modules with new LCE modules having revised software, and do an operational test of the LCE modules, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2506, dated February 3, 2014. If the operational test fails, before further flight, do corrective actions and repeat the operational test and applicable corrective actions until the operational test passes.

    (h) Replacement of Inboard Elevator Power Control Packages (PCPs) and Installation of External Inboard Elevator Compensators

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, replace both inboard elevator PCPs with new PCPs that have the internal compensators removed, install two larger external compensators for each PCP, and do an operational test of each inboard elevator PCP, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2513, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2014. If the operational test fails, before further flight, do corrective actions and repeat the operational test and applicable corrective actions until the operational test passes.

    (i) Revision to the Maintenance or Inspection Program

    For all airplanes: Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate Item Numbers 27-CMR-10, “Lubricate inboard elevator hinge bearings,” and 27-CMR-11, “Functional check of inboard elevator hinge bearing and power control unit rod end bearing free play,” of Section G., “CMR Tasks,” of the Boeing 747-8/8F Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs) Document D011U721-02-03, Revision December 2013. The initial compliance times and repetitive intervals for the lubrication and functional check are specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD that are not identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD:

    (i) The initial compliance time for the lubrication of the inboard elevator hinge bearings is within 18 months after the most recent lubrication. The repetitive lubrication intervals are specified in Item Number 27-CMR-10, “Lubricate inboard elevator hinge bearings,” of Section G., “CMR Tasks,” of the Boeing 747-8/8F Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs) Document D011U721-02-03, Revision December 2013.

    (ii) The initial compliance time for the functional check of the inboard elevator hinge bearing and power control unit rod end bearing freeplay is within 12 months after the effective date of this AD. The repetitive functional check intervals are specified in Item Number 27-CMR-11, “Functional check of inboard elevator hinge bearing and power control unit rod end bearing free play,” of Section G., “CMR Tasks,” of the Boeing 747-8/8F Certification Maintenance Requirements, D011U721-02-03, Revision December 2013.

    (2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD:

    (i) The initial compliance time for the lubrication of the inboard elevator hinge bearings is within 24 months after the most recent lubrication. Repeat the lubrication thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months.

    (ii) The initial compliance time for the functional check of the inboard elevator hinge bearing and power control unit rod end bearing freeplay is within 36 months after the effective date of this AD. Repeat the functional check thereafter at intervals not to exceed 36 months.

    (j) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any airplane an LCE having part number (P/N) CA49253-001 or CA49253-002, or an inboard elevator PCP having P/N 327400-1009.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2513, dated February 4, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (l)(4)(i) and (l)(4)(ii) apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition

    (m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Douglas Tsuji, Senior Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6546; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2506, dated February 3, 2014.

    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 747-27A2513, Revision 1, dated July 18, 2014.

    (iii) Boeing 747-8/8F Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs) Document D011U721-02-03, Revision December 2013.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 1, 2015. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17023 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0428; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-067-AD; Amendment 39-18205; AD 2015-14-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of deficiencies in the flight control module (FCM) software. This AD requires installing certain FCM software. We are issuing this AD to correct deficiencies in the FCM software, which, if not corrected, could prevent continued safe flight and landing.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective August 20, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0428.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0428; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Tsuji, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6546; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2014 (79 FR 37684). The NPRM was prompted by reports of deficiencies in the FCM software. The NPRM proposed to require installing certain FCM software. We are issuing this AD to correct deficiencies in the FCM software, which, if not corrected, could prevent continued safe flight and landing.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Support for the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014)

    United Airlines Engineering, the Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA), and Boeing expressed support for the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014). United Airlines Engineering also indicated that all of its airplanes were modified as of April 2, 2014, with no adverse effects.

    Request To Issue Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    Boeing requested that we issue AMOCs for several items it identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014. Boeing requested AMOCs to do the following actions.

    • Install the FCM operational program software (OPS) in the Mass Storage Device 1 only.

    • To identify the existing FCM OPS software as either part number HNP5E-AL01-5010 (Block Point 1) or part number HNP5F-AL01-5011 (Block Point 2) software.

    • To specify that the FCM loadable diagnostic information (LDI) database (DB) and FCM air data reference function (ADRF) DB software are not required to be reloaded if the FCM OPS software part number HNP5C-AL01-5012 can be successfully loaded without reloading the databases.

    We agree that the issues raised by the commenter should be addressed. The issues are addressed in a new revision to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014. We have revised paragraphs (c), (g), and (h) of this AD to reference Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015, as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the required actions. There has been no expansion to the applicability or scope of this AD. Use of either Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015, is acceptable. No further work is necessary on airplanes on which operators have done the actions described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014. We have added new paragraph (j) of this AD to provide credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014. We have re-designated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

    However, we disagree with issuing AMOCs at this time. AMOCs provide an alternative method of compliance to the methods required to be used in the associated AD. An AMOC is issued only after an AD has been issued and only after data are provided to show that the proposed solution is complete and addresses the unsafe condition.

    Request To Issue an AMOC for Later Software Versions

    Boeing requested that we issue an AMOC to allow installation of the FCM Block Point 4 software or later FCM software in lieu of the FCM Block Point 3 software proposed by the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014). Boeing explained that the FCM Block Point 4 software or later FCM software updates are an alternative to the Block Point 3 software, and that operators may wish to install Block Point 4 or later FCM software due to the additional product improvements provided in the later software versions.

    We agree that FCM Block Point 4 (or later FAA-approved FCM software versions) includes the Block Point 3 updates and therefore corrects the unsafe condition identified in this AD. We have retained the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014); clarified and moved the required software installation from paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to new paragraph (g)(1) of this AD; and added new paragraphs (g)(2), (g)(3), and (g)(4) of this AD, which specify to install FCM Block Point 4 in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270023-00, Issue 001, dated July 24, 2014, or to install FCM Common Block Point 1 in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270027-00, Issue 002, dated March 9, 2015, or to install any later FAA-approved FCM software version using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD. As stated previously, an AMOC is issued only after an AD has been issued and only after data are provided to show that the proposed solution is complete and addresses the unsafe condition. Also, as previously stated, we have added new paragraph (j) of this AD to provide credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270027-00, Issue 001, dated September 26, 2014.

    In addition, we recommend that Boeing incorporate the provision for later approved parts in its service information, when appropriate. This provision is described in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 20-176A, dated June 16, 2014. (See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/979ddd1479e1ec6f86257cfc0052d4e9/$FILE/AC%2020-176A.PDF.)

    Request To Clarify the Minimum Concurrent Requirement

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014) to clarify that the minimum concurrent requirement for Group 1 airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014, is to install the FCM LDI DB software and central maintenance computer function (CMCF) LDI DB software. Boeing stated that the updated FCM OPS software is installed per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014, and therefore, the previous FCM OPS software version specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270017-00, Issue 001, dated September 18, 2013, does not need to be installed.

    We agree with the commenter's request for clarification. This clarification was addressed in the new revision of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015, which we have replicated in the final rule by revising paragraph (h) to include the statement “. . . or at a minimum install the FCM LDI DB and CMCF LDI DB software, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270017-00, Issue 001, dated September 18, 2013.

    Request To Revise the Discussion Section of the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014)

    Boeing requested that we revise the source of the deficiency provided in the first sentence of the Discussion section of the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014), which stated, in part, “We have received reports of in-service incidents and identified an indicating system shortcoming due to. . . .” Boeing stated that the issues are with the flight control system, not the indicating system.

    We agree with the commenter that the shortcoming is in the flight control system, not the indicating system. However, this section is not repeated in the final rule. Therefore no change is needed to this AD.

    Request To Clarify Paragraph (i) of the Proposed AD (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014)

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014), which referred to installation of “new” software. Boeing requested that we remove the word “new” from that sentence. Boeing stated that only the FCM OPS software is new, and that the FCM LDI DB, FCM ADRF DB, and CMCF LDI DB software identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014, are previous software versions.

    We agree with the request, for the reasons provided by the commenter. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD accordingly.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 37684, July 2, 2014).

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Boeing has issued the following service bulletins.

    • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270017-00, Issue 001, dated September 18, 2013. This service information describes procedures for installing FCM OPS, FCM LDI DB, and CMCF LDI DB software, and doing a software configuration check.

    • Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015. This service information describes procedures for installing FCM OPS, FCM LDI DB, and FCM ADRF DB software, and doing a software configuration check.

    • Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270023-00, Issue 001, dated July 24, 2014. This service information describes procedures for installing FCM OPS, FCM LDI DB, FCM ADRF DB, and CMCF LDI DB software, and doing a software configuration check.

    • Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270027-00, Issue 002, dated March 9, 2015. This service information describes procedures for installing FCM OPS, FCM LDI DB, FCM Compatibility DB, and CMCF LDI DB software, and doing a software configuration check.

    This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this or AD.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 11 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    FCM BP3 software installation 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 $0 $170 $1,870 Concurrent FCM BP2 software installation (Group 1 airplanes) 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 630 800 8,800

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    The parts cost for the FCM BP3 software installation is not included in our cost estimate. It is considered Boeing-provided loadable software, which is referenced in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015, under “Parts & Materials Supplied by the Operator.”

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S. C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2015-14-07 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18205; Docket No. FAA-2014-0428; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-067-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 20, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of deficiencies in the flight control module (FCM) software. We are issuing this AD to correct deficiencies in the FCM software, which, if not corrected, could prevent continued safe flight and landing.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

    (g) FCM Software Installation

    Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (g)(4) of this AD.

    (1) Use the onboard data load function (ODLF) to install FCM Block Point 3 software (including FCM operational program software (OPS), FCM loadable diagnostic information (LDI) database (DB) software, and FCM air data reference function (ADRF) DB software), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015.

    (2) Use the ODLF to install FCM Block Point 4 software (including FCM OPS, FCM LDI DB software, FCM ADRF DB software, and central maintenance computer function (CMCF) LDI DB software), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270023-00, Issue 001, dated July 24, 2014.

    (3) Use the ODLF to install FCM Common Block Point 1 software (including FMC OPS, FCM LDI DB software, FCM Compatibility DB software, and CMCF LDI DB software), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270027-00, Issue 002, dated March 9, 2015.

    (4) Install any later FAA-approved FCM software version using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

    (h) Concurrent Requirements

    For Group 1 airplanes, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015: Prior to or concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, use the ODLF to install FCM OPS, FCM LDI DB, and CMCF LDI DB software, or at a minimum install the FCM LDI DB and CMCF LDI DB software, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270017-00, Issue 001, dated September 18, 2013.

    (i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    After installation of the software specified in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, no person may install any previous versions of the FCM OPS, FCM LDI DB, FCM ADRF DB, or CMCF LDI DB software, on any airplane.

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 001, dated February 6, 2014; or Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270027-00, Issue 001, dated September 26, 2014; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (3) If the service information contains steps that are labeled as RC (Required for Compliance), those steps must be done to comply with this AD; any steps that are not labeled as RC are recommended. Those steps that are not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods different from those identified in the specified service information without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the steps labeled as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to steps labeled as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Douglas Tsuji, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6546; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.

    (m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S. C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270020-00, Issue 002, dated February 12, 2015.

    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270023-00, Issue 001, dated July 24, 2014.

    (iii) Boeing Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270027-00, Issue 002, dated March 9, 2015.

    (iv) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB270017-00, Issue 001, dated September 18, 2013.

    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 2, 2015. Jeffrey E. Duven, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17203 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1177; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-009-AD; Amendment 39-18208; AD 2015-14-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Model PC-12/47 and PC-12/47E airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the aileron trim tab disconnecting above 10,000 feet altitude. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective August 20, 2015.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 20, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1177; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    For service information identified in this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD, Customer Support Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0)41 619 73 11; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to adding an AD that would apply to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Model PC-12/47 and PC-12/47E airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 1, 2015 (80 FR 24854). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    During a continued airworthiness review, a potential unsafe condition was identified that could result from a disconnected aileron trim tab occurring above an altitude of 10.000 feet.

    This condition, if not corrected, could lead, in case of a disconnection of an aileron trim tab, to undamped aeroplane vibrations, potentially resulting in structural failure.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. issued SB No. 27-021 to provide instructions for replacement of the aileron tab counter balance weight.

    For the reason described above, this AD requires replacement of the aileron tab counter balance weight with a new, slightly heavier, aileron tab counter balance weight.

    The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1177-0002.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request Revision of Paragraph (e) Reason of the AD

    Johan Kruger stated the sentence of paragraph (e) Reason in the proposed AD was incomplete and misleading:

    We are issuing this AD to prevent a disconnected aileron trim tab, which could lead to undamped airplane vibrations, potentially resulting in structural failure.

    Johan Kruger proposed replacing the above sentence with this sentence similar to the MCAI:

    We are issuing this AD to prevent undamped airplane vibrations, potentially resulting in structural failure in case of a disconnected aileron trim tab.

    We agree with the commenter that the proposed sentence is clarification of the unsafe condition. We have adopted the proposed sentence in paragraph (e) of the AD.

    Request Correction of Part Number (P/N)

    Johan Kruger stated the cited part number (P/N) 27.15.12.037 of the aileron trim tab assembly quoted is wrong in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of the proposed AD; the correct P/N is 527.15.12.037. We infer that the commenter requested correction of the incorrect P/N.

    We agree with the commenter that the P/N in the proposed AD is incorrect. We have changed the incorrect P/N to 527.15.12.037 in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of the AD.

    Request Correction of Misleading Wording in Paragraph (f)(4) of the AD

    Johan Kruger commented the wording in paragraph 2(f)(4) is misleading, “. . . provided that an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038 is not installed on the airplane.”

    Johan Kruger further wrote that Pilatus proposed the wording be changed to read, “. . . provided that an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038 is not installed on that aileron assembly.”

    We infer the commenter means paragraph (f)(4) of the AD.

    We agree with the commenter. Aileron trim tab assemblies will only be associated with aileron assemblies and not by airplane. The aileron assemblies themselves are associated with the airplane number. We have adopted the proposed wording in paragraph (f)(4) of the AD.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 24854, May 1, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 24854, May 1, 2015).

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

    Relative Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 27-021, dated January 20, 2015. The service information describes procedures for replacement of the aileron tab counter balance weight. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 303 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5.5 work hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,000 per product.

    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $444,652.50, or $1,467.50 per product.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

    (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1177; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.

    Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

    PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: 2015-14-10 PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD.: Amendment 39-18208; Docket No. FAA-2015-1177; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-009-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August 20, 2015.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. model and serial number airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (1) Model PC-12/47, manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs) 684 through MSN 888; and

    (2) Model PC-12/47E, MSNs 545, and 1001 through 1520.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the aileron trim tab disconnecting above 10,000 feet altitude. We are issuing this AD to prevent undamped airplane vibrations, potentially resulting in structural failure in case of a disconnected aileron trim tab.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:

    (1) For airplanes equipped with aileron trim tab assembly, part number (P/N) 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038; or aileron assembly, P/N 557.05.12.015, 557.05.12.016, 557.05.12.017, or 557.05.12.018: Within 12 months after August 20, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), replace the aileron tab counter balance weight and re-identify the aileron trim tab assembly following the instructions of PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 27-021, dated January 20, 2015.

    (2) For airplanes that on August 20, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) has an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038, installed: After modification of that airplane as required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, do not install another aileron trim tab assembly with P/N 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038.

    (3) For airplanes that on August 20, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) does not have an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038, installed: After August 20, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), do not install an aileron trim tab assembly with P/N 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038.

    (4) For all airplanes: After August 20, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), you are allowed to install on an airplane an aileron assembly, having a P/N 557.05.12.015, 557.05.12.016, 557.05.12.017, or 557.05.12.018, provided that an aileron trim tab assembly, P/N 527.15.12.037 or 527.15.12.038 is not installed on that aileron assembly.

    (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2015-0060, dated April 10, 2015, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-1177-0002.

    (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. PILATUS PC-12 Service Bulletin No: 27-021, dated January 20, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. service information identified in this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD, Customer Support Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0)41 619 73 11; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-1177.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 7, 2015. Earl Lawrence, Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17200 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0045; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-22] Establishment of Class E Airspace; Defuniak Springs, FL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class E Airspace at Defuniak Springs, FL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Defuniak Springs Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, August 20, 2015. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html. FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class E airspace at Defuniak Springs Airport, Defuniak Springs, FL.

    History

    On April 24, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at Defuniak Springs Airport, Defuniak Springs, FL (80 FR 22949). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Defuniak Springs Airport, Defuniak Springs, FL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

    Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth ASO FL E5 Defuniak Springs, FL [New] Defuniak Springs Airport, FL (Lat. 30°43′52″ N., long. 86°9′14″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Defuniak Springs Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 6, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17286 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 91 Stage 3 Compliance for Jets Weighing 75,000 Pounds or Less After December 31, 2015 AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice reminding operators of noise compliance deadline.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Aviation Administration is reminding operators of jet airplanes weighing 75,000 pounds or less that after December 31, 2015, operations in the contiguous United States may be conducted only with airplanes that comply with at least Stage 3 noise levels. Operators that fail to meet this requirement may be subject to civil penalties. Certain operations of airplanes not meeting Stage 3 may be conducted under special flight authorizations granted by the FAA on a case by case basis.

    DATES:

    Compliance is due after December 31, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions regarding this restriction and its applicability may be directed to Rebecca Cointin AEE-100, Office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-4770; email: [email protected]. For legal questions, contact Karen Petronis, AGC-220, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-3073; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The noise from smaller jet airplanes continues to have an impact on communities near airports. In recognition of this impact, Congress addressed the operations of these airplanes in Section 506 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. That section states: “[A]fter December 31, 2015, a person may not operate a civil subsonic jet airplane with a maximum weight of 75,000 pounds or less, and for which an airworthiness certificate (other than an experimental certificate) has been issued, to or from an airport in the United States unless the Secretary of Transportation finds that the aircraft complies with [S]tage 3 noise levels.” Stage 3 noise levels are the certificated noise levels as established in 14 CFR part 36.

    In 2013, the FAA codified this statutory requirement as § 91.881. The prohibition applies to all civil operations in the 48 contiguous United States regardless of purpose (except for those airplanes that have an experimental airworthiness certificate). The law also provides for operation of otherwise prohibited airplanes after that date under certain circumstances. The authorized purposes were codified in § 91.883, which includes the procedure for applying for a special flight authorization from the FAA.

    Operators of airplanes that do not comply with Stage 3 noise levels may choose to replace them, or to incorporate noise-reduction technologies that may be available to make the airplanes Stage 3 noise compliant. Operators that continue to fly non-compliant airplanes after December 31, 2015, will be subject to applicable civil penalties.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10, 2015. Lourdes Maurice, Director, Office of Environment and Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17382 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31025; Amdt. No. 3650] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 16, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

    For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;

    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

    The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 19, 2015. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

    PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

    By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:

    * * * Effective Upon Publication AIRAC Date State City Airport FDC
  • No.
  • FDC Date Subject
    23-Jul-15 WI New Richmond New Richmond Rgnl 5/7846 06/02/15 This NOTAM, published in TL 15-15, is hereby rescinded in its entirety. 23-Jul-15 WI Baraboo Baraboo Wisconsin Dells 5/0094 6/9/2015 RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1A. 23-Jul-15 WI Baraboo Baraboo Wisconsin Dells 5/0095 6/9/2015 LOC/DME RWY 1, Amdt 1B. 23-Jul-15 WI Baraboo Baraboo Wisconsin Dells 5/0097 6/9/2015 RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1A. 23-Jul-15 OH Jackson James A Rhodes 5/0679 6/9/2015 VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2A. 23-Jul-15 OH Jackson James A Rhodes 5/0680 6/9/2015 RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1B. 23-Jul-15 OH Jackson James A Rhodes 5/0681 6/9/2015 RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1B. 23-Jul-15 IA Algona Algona Muni 5/2064 6/8/2015 RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig-B. 23-Jul-15 IA Algona Algona Muni 5/2065 6/8/2015 RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1A. 23-Jul-15 IA Algona Algona Muni 5/2066 6/8/2015 VOR/DME-A, Amdt 7A. 23-Jul-15 TX Rocksprings Edwards County 5/2350 6/9/2015 VOR RWY 14, Amdt 5. 23-Jul-15 MO Caruthersville Caruthersville Memorial 5/4038 6/9/2015 VOR/DME RWY 18, Orig. 23-Jul-15 MO Caruthersville Caruthersville Memorial 5/4042 6/9/2015 RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1A. 23-Jul-15 MO Caruthersville Caruthersville Memorial 5/4043 6/9/2015 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1. 23-Jul-15 WI Middleton Middleton Muni—Morey Field 5/4207 6/9/2015 VOR RWY 28, Orig. 23-Jul-15 NM Angel Fire Angel Fire 5/4335 6/8/2015 RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1B. 23-Jul-15 WI Monroe Monroe Muni 5/4607 6/9/2015 RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig. 23-Jul-15 WI Monroe Monroe Muni 5/4608 6/9/2015 RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Orig. 23-Jul-15 WI Monroe Monroe Muni 5/4609 6/9/2015 VOR/DME RWY 30, Amdt 8. 23-Jul-15 CA Vacaville Nut Tree 5/9713 6/9/2015 RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 20, Orig-A. 23-Jul-15 CA Vacaville Nut Tree 5/9714 6/9/2015 VOR/DME-A, Amdt 5. 23-Jul-15 WI Middleton Middleton Muni—Morey Field 5/9940 6/9/2015 LOC/DME RWY 10, Amdt 1. 23-Jul-15 WI Middleton Middleton Muni—Morey Field 5/9941 6/9/2015 RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1. 23-Jul-15 WI Middleton Middleton Muni—Morey Field 5/9942 6/9/2015 RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 2.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16986 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31022; Amdt. No. 3647] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 16, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

    For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

    The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2015. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

    PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 23 July 2015 Lexington, KY, Blue Grass, ILS OR LOC RWY 4, Amdt 17B Philadelphia, PA, Philadelphia Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 3A Effective 20 August 2015 Koliganek, AK, Koliganek, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1 Koliganek, AK, Koliganek, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1 Koliganek, AK, Koliganek, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3 San Francisco, CA, San Francisco Intl, VOR-B, Amdt 7, CANCELED Denver, CO, Centennial, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 35R, Amdt 10 Denver, CO, Centennial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17L, Amdt 1 Denver, CO, Centennial, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 35R, Amdt 2 Denver, CO, Centennial, RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 35R, Amdt 1 Venice, FL, Venice Muni, NDB RWY 31, Amdt 2B, CANCELED New Bedford, MA, New Bedford Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 8 Forsyth, MT, Tillitt Field, NDB RWY 26, Amdt 4 Forsyth, MT, Tillitt Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, Amdt 1 Gastonia, NC, Gastonia Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 6 Lincolnton, NC, Lincolnton-Lincoln County Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Monroe, NC, Charlotte-Monroe Executive, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Salisbury, NC, Rowan County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Williston, ND, Sloulin Fld Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5 Teterboro, NJ, Teterboro, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2D, CANCELED Lancaster, SC, Lancaster County-Mc Whirter Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2 Rock Hill, SC, Rock Hill/York Co/Bryant Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
    [FR Doc. 2015-16968 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31024; Amdt. No. 3649] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 16, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

    For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part § 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.

    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

    The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 19, 2015. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

    PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows: Effective 23 July 2015 Gallatin, TN, Sumner County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 2 Gallatin, TN, Sumner County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 2 Gallatin, TN, Sumner County Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4 Effective 20 August 2015 Roanoke, VA, Roanoke Rgnl/Woodrum Field, LDA Y RWY 6, Amdt 12 Roanoke, VA, Roanoke Rgnl/Woodrum Field, LDA Z RWY 6, Orig Roanoke, VA, Roanoke Rgnl/Woodrum Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 3
    [FR Doc. 2015-16983 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 97 [Docket No. 31023; Amdt. No. 3648] Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 16, 2015. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.

    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:

    For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;

    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;

    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,

    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard A. Dunham III, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK. 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary.

    This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

    Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.

    The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

    The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

    The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2015. John Duncan, Director, Flight Standards Service. Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, Part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

    PART 97—STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

    2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

    By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows: EFFECTIVE UPON PUBLICATION

    AIRAC Date State City Airport FDC
  • No.
  • FDC Date Subject
    23-Jul-15 OH Athens/Albany Ohio University 5/0186 06/02/15 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Orig. 23-Jul-15 CO Holyoke Holyoke 5/0908 06/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-D. 23-Jul-15 CO Holyoke Holyoke 5/0909 06/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-C. 23-Jul-15 MI Detroit Willow Run 5/0927 06/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 23L, Amdt 1A. 23-Jul-15 TX Dumas Moore County 5/0955 5/26/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig. 23-Jul-15 TX Dumas Moore County 5/0957 5/26/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Orig. 23-Jul-15 TX Dumas Moore County 5/0958 05/26/15 VOR/DME-A, Amdt 6. 23-Jul-15 MI Three Rivers Three Rivers Muni Dr Haines 5/1435 5/20/15 VOR-A, Amdt 10. 23-Jul-15 OH Bucyrus Port Bucyrus-Crawford County 5/1689 05/26/15 VOR OR GPS RWY 22, Amdt 4A. 23-Jul-15 TX Fort Hood/Killeen Robert Gray AAF 5/2282 05/20/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 33, Amdt 1. 23-Jul-15 TX Fort Hood/Killeen Robert Gray AAF 5/2283 05/20/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1. 23-Jul-15 TX Fort Hood/Killeen Robert Gray AAF 5/2285 05/20/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Amdt 1. 23-Jul-15 TX Fort Hood/Killeen Robert Gray AAF 5/2286 05/20/15 VOR-A, Amdt 2. 23-Jul-15 TX Fort Hood/Killeen Robert Gray AAF 5/2287 05/20/15 COPTER VOR RWY 33, Amdt 2. 23-Jul-15 UT Vernal Vernal Rgnl 5/2584 05/20/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Amdt 1B. 23-Jul-15 UT Vernal Vernal Rgnl 5/2585 05/20/15 VOR RWY 34, Amdt 8. 23-Jul-15 CA Arcata/Eureka Arcata 5/3233 05/20/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1. 23-Jul-15 CA Arcata/Eureka Arcata 5/3234 05/20/15 VOR/DME RWY 14, Amdt 1. 23-Jul-15 CA Arcata/Eureka Arcata 5/3235 05/20/15 VOR/DME RWY 1, Amdt 8. 23-Jul-15 TX Van Horn Culberson County 5/4650 05/21/15 NDB RWY 21, Amdt 2B. 23-Jul-15 TX Van Horn Culberson County 5/4651 05/21/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig. 23-Jul-15 CA Arcata/Eureka Arcata 5/5469 05/20/15 ILS Y OR LOC/DME RWY 32, Amdt 2B. 23-Jul-15 CA Arcata/Eureka Arcata 5/5481 05/20/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1. 23-Jul-15 CA Arcata/Eureka Arcata 5/5488 05/20/15 ILS Z RWY 32, Amdt 30A. 23-Jul-15 MO Branson M Graham Clark Downtown 5/5668 05/26/15 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 2. 23-Jul-15 TX Harlingen Valley Intl 5/5857 06/02/15 VOR/DME Z RWY 31, Orig. 23-Jul-15 WI New Richmond New Richmond Rgnl 5/6799 06/02/15 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Orig. 23-Jul-15 IL Kankakee Greater Kankakee 5/7231 06/02/15 VOR RWY 4, Amdt 6B. 23-Jul-15 WI New Richmond New Richmond Rgnl 5/7837 06/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 2A. 23-Jul-15 WI New Richmond New Richmond Rgnl 5/7846 06/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 2B. 23-Jul-15 MI Boyne City Boyne City Muni 5/8161 06/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-A. 23-Jul-15 MI Boyne City Boyne City Muni 5/8162 06/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-A. 23-Jul-15 MI Jackson Jackson County-Reynolds Field 5/8180 06/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-B. 23-Jul-15 OK Cushing Cushing Muni 5/8845 06/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1A. 23-Jul-15 KY Louisville Louisville Intl-Standiford Field 5/8899 06/02/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, Amdt 3C. 23-Jul-15 KY Louisville Louisville Intl-Standiford Field 5/9501 06/02/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 35L, ILS RWY 35L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 35L (CAT II), ILS RWY 35L (CAT III), Amdt 3B. 23-Jul-15 KY Louisville Louisville Intl-Standiford Field 5/9502 06/02/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 35R, ILS RWY 35R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 35R (CAT II), ILS RWY 35R (CAT III), Amdt 4B. 23-Jul-15 KY Louisville Louisville Intl-Standiford Field 5/9505 06/02/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 17L, Amdt 4B. 23-Jul-15 LA Lafayette Lafayette Rgnl/Paul Fournet Field 5/9530 05/26/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 22L, Amdt 5A. 23-Jul-15 LA Lafayette Lafayette Rgnl/Paul Fournet Field 5/9531 05/26/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Orig-B. 23-Jul-15 LA Lafayette Lafayette Rgnl/Paul Fournet Field 5/9532 05/26/15 ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 4R, Amdt 2A. 23-Jul-15 LA Lafayette Lafayette Rgnl/Paul Fournet Field 5/9533 05/26/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L, Amdt 1A. 23-Jul-15 LA Lafayette Lafayette Rgnl/Paul Fournet Field 5/9534 05/26/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 4R, Amdt 1A. 23-Jul-15 LA Lafayette Lafayette Rgnl/Paul Fournet Field 5/9536 05/26/15 VOR/DME RWY 11, Amdt 1E. 23-Jul-15 LA Lafayette Lafayette Rgnl/Paul Fournet Field 5/9537 05/26/15 RADAR 1, Amdt 10. 23-Jul-15 LA Lafayette Lafayette Rgnl/Paul Fournet Field 5/9538 05/26/15 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 2. 23-Jul-15 TX Fort Worth Fort Worth Meacham Intl 5/9624 05/20/15 Takeoff Minimums and (Obstacle) DP, Amdt 7. 23-Jul-15 WI Mosinee Central Wisconsin 5/9628 06/02/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 8, Amdt 13A. 23-Jul-15 WI Mosinee Central Wisconsin 5/9629 06/02/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 35, Amdt 2B. 23-Jul-15 WI Mosinee Central Wisconsin 5/9630 06/02/15 VOR/DME RWY 35, Amdt 9A. 23-Jul-15 WI Mosinee Central Wisconsin 5/9631 06/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1A. 23-Jul-15 WI Mosinee Central Wisconsin 5/9632 06/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1A. 23-Jul-15 WI Mosinee Central Wisconsin 5/9633 06/02/15 RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1A. 23-Jul-15 CA Merced Merced Rgnl/Macready Field 5/9712 06/02/15 ILS OR LOC RWY 30, Amdt 14D.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16971 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 14 CFR Parts 1245, 1262, 1263, 1264, and 1266 [Docket No: NASA-2015-0007] RIN 2700-AE21 Administrative Updates AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This direct final rule makes nonsubstantive changes to agency regulations to correct citation and spelling errors.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule is effective on September 14, 2015. Comments due on or before August 17, 2015. If adverse comments are received, NASA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments must be identified with RIN 2700-AE21 and may be sent to NASA via the Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Please note that NASA will post all comments on the Internet with changes, including any personal information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James A. Reistrup, Senior Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, NASA Headquarters, telephone (202) 358-2027.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Direct Final Rule and Significant Adverse Comments

    NASA has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it makes nonsubstantive changes to correct citations and spelling errors within the parts listed. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. However, if NASA receives significant adverse comments, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, NASA will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

    Background

    The revision to these rules are part of NASA's retrospective plan under E.O. 13563 completed in August 2011. NASA's full plan can be accessed on the Agency's open Government Web site at http://www.nasa.gov/open/. With the passage of Public Law 111-314, Enactment of Title 51—National and Commercial Space Programs, Dec. 18, 2010, some of the NASA Space Act citations for the United States Code in Title 14 of the CFR needed to be updated to Title 51. In the process of reviewing the regulations for NASA's retrospective plan that are maintained by the Office of the General Counsel, the following parts were identified as needing citation updates and some also needed spelling corrections for a few misspelled words:

    PART 1245—PATENTS AND OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, Subpart 3—NASA Foreign Patent Program PART 1262—EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT IN AGENCY PROCEEDINGS PART 1263—DEMAND FOR INFORMATION OR TESTIMONY SERVED ON AGENCY EMPLOYEES; PROCEDURES PART 1264—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL PENALTIES ACT OF 1986 PART 1266—CROSS-WAIVER OF LIABILITY Statutory Authority

    The National Aeronautics and Space Act (the Space Act), 51 U.S.C. 20113 (a), authorizes the Administrator of NASA to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the manner of its operations and the exercise of the powers vested in it by law.

    Regulatory Analysis Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563, Improvement Regulation and Regulation Review

    Executive Orders (EO) 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). EO 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated as “not significant” under section 3(f) of EO 12866.

    Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to be published at the time the proposed rule is published. This requirement does not apply if the agency “certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (5 U.S.C. 603). This rule removes one section from Title 14 of the CFR and, therefore, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This direct final rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Review Under EO 13132

    EO 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) requires regulations be reviewed for Federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local governments, and if the effects are sufficiently substantial, preparation of the Federal assessment is required to assist senior policy makers. The amendments will not have any substantial direct effects on state and local governments within the meaning of the EO. Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 1245, 1262, 1263, 1264, and 1266

    Patents, Equal access to justice, Penalties.

    Accordingly, under the authority of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, as amended, [51 U.S.C. 20113], NASA amends parts 1245, 1262, 1263, 1264, and 1266 of title 14 as follows:

    PART 1245—PATENTS AND OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Subpart 3—NASA Foreign Patent Program 1. The authority citation for part 1245, subpart 3, is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    51 U.S.C. 20135(g) and E.O. 9865, 12 FR 3907, 3 CFR, 1943-1948 Comp., p. 651, and E.O. 10096, 15 FR 389, 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 292.

    2. In § 1245.301, paragraph (a), the last sentence is revised to read as follows:
    § 1245.301 Inventions under NASA contracts.

    (a) * * *However, any such waiver is subject to the reservation by the Administrator of the license required to be retained by NASA under 51 U.S.C. 20135(g) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, as amended.

    PART 1262—EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT IN AGENCY PROCEEDINGS 3. The authority citation for part 1262 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 504; 51 U.S.C. 20113(a).

    § 1262.201 [Amended]
    4. In § 1262.201, paragraph (d), remove the word “determing,” and add in its place the word “determining.”
    § 1262.202 [Amended]
    5. In § 1262.202, paragraph (a), remove the word “defiined,” and add in its place the word “defined.”
    PART 1263—DEMAND FOR INFORMATION OR TESTIMONY SERVED ON AGENCY EMPLOYEES; PROCEDURES 6. The authority citation for part 1263 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3102, 51 U.S.C. 20113(a).

    PART 1264—IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL PENALTIES ACT OF 1986 7. The authority citation for part 1264 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 3809, 51 U.S.C. 20113(a).

    § 1264.109 [Amended]
    8. In § 1264.109, paragraph (c), remove the word “penalities,” and add in its place the word “penalties.”
    § 1264.111 [Amended]
    9. In § 1264.111, paragraph (b)(4), remove the word “precedures,” and add in its place the word “procedures.”
    § 1264.116 [Amended]
    10. In § 1264.116, paragraph (b), remove the word “Paticipate,” and add in its place the word “Participate.”
    § 1264.124 [Amended]
    11. In § 1264.124, the first sentence, remove word “supoena” and add in its place the word “subpoena” and remove the word “supoenaed,” and add in its place the word “subpoenaed.”
    PART 1266—CROSS-WAIVER OF LIABILITY 12. The authority citation for part 1266 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    51 U.S.C. 20139 and 51 U.S.C. 20113(a), (e), and (f).

    Cheryl E. Parker, NASA Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17214 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0045] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations; Southeast Drag Boat Championships, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina during the Southeast Drag Boat Championships, a series of high-speed boat races. The event will take place from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. daily from July 24, 2015 through July 26, 2015. Approximately 50 high-speed race boats are expected to participate in the races. This special local regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life and property on navigable waters of the United States during the event. Furthermore, this special local regulation will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Persons and vessels that are not participating in the races will be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from July 24, 2015 until July 26, 2015. This rule will be enforced daily from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0045. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher Ruleman, Sector Charleston Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

    On May 14, 2015, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations; Southeast Drag Boat Championships, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bucksport, SC in the Federal Register (78 FR 16205). We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was requested and none was held.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to ensure safety of life and property on navigable waters of the United States during the Southeast Drag Boat Championships.

    C. Discussion of Rule

    From July 24, 2015 until July 26, 2015, the Bucksport Marina will host the Southeast Drag Boat Championships, a series of high-speed boat races. The event will be held on a portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina. Approximately 50 high-speed race boats are anticipated to participate in the races.

    This special local regulation encompasses certain waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina. This special local regulation will be enforced daily from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. on July 24, 2015 until July 26, 2015. This special local regulation consists of a regulated area around vessels participating in the event. Persons and vessels that are not participating in the event are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area by contacting the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16 to seek authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such permission must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    The economic impact of this rule is not expected to be significant for the following reasons: (1) Although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the effective period; (2) persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race area if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; and (3) advance notification will be made to the local maritime community via broadcast notice to mariners.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within the regulated area from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. daily from July 24, 2015 through July 26, 2015. However, this special local regulation would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for only three days over a weekend. Additionally, traffic will be allowed to pass through the regulated area with the authorization of the Captain of the Port of Charleston or a designated representative, and all vessels will be permitted to operate in the surrounding area during the effective period.

    For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233

    2. Add a temporary § 100.35T07-0045 to read as follows:
    § 100.35T07-0045 Special Local Regulations; Southeast Drag Boat Championships, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bucksport, SC.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is established as a special local regulation: All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within the following points; starting at point 1 in position 33°39′11.46″ N, 079°05′36.78″ W; thence west to point 2 in position 33°39′12.18″ N, 079°05′47.76″ W; thence south to point 3 in position 33°38′39.48″ N, 079°05′37.44″ W; thence east to point 4 in position 33°38′42.3″ N, 079°05′30.6″ W; thence north back to origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated area.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels, except those persons and vessels participating in the event, are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (2) Nonparticipant persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16 to seek authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such permission must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement date. This rule will be enforced from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. daily from July 24, 2015 through July 26, 2015.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. B.D. Falk, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17455 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0192] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations; Beaufort Water Festival, Beaufort, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation pertaining to the Beaufort Water Festival from 12:00 p.m. through 4:00 p.m. on July 26, 2015. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Beaufort Water Festival Air Show. During the enforcement period, this special local regulation establishes a regulated area which all people and vessels will be prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring, or remaining within. Vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the area if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on July 26, 2015, and will be enforced from 12:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2015-0192 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2015-0192 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “Search.” They are also available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone 843-740-3184, email [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive necessary information about the event until March 19, 2015. As a result, the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and to receive public comments prior to the event. In addition, any delay in the effective date of this rule would be impracticable for the same insufficient time as noted above and because immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the race participants, spectators and the public.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the Beaufort Water Festival.

    C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    This temporary rule creates a regulated area that will encompass a portion of the Beaufort River that is 700 ft wide by 2600 ft in length, west of the Woods Memorial Bridge in front of Waterfront Park in Beaufort, SC. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring, or remaining within the regulated area. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. Persons and vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of this special local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. This rule may have some impact on the public, but these potential impacts will be minimal for the following reasons: (1) The rule will be in effect for only four hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the effective period; (3) advance notification will be made to the local maritime community via broadcast notice to mariners.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of Beaufort River from 12:00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. on July 26, 2015. For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for Federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add a temporary § 100.T07-0192 to read as follows:
    § 100.T07-0192 Special Local Regulations; Beaufort Water Festival, Beaufort, SC.

    (a) Regulated areas. The following regulated area that will encompass a portion of the Beaufort River that is 700 ft wide by 2600 ft in length, whose approximate corner coordinates are as follows: 32°25′47″ N/080°40′44″ W, 32°25′41″ N/080°40′14″ W, 32°25′35″ N/080°40′16″ W, 32°25′40″ N/080°40′46″ W. Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring, or remaining within the regulated area. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    (b) Definition. The term “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area unless otherwise authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at 843-740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16 to seek authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area through advanced notice via broadcast notice to mariners and by on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement date. This rule will be enforced from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on July 26, 2015.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. B.D. Falk, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17477 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0227] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a 500-yard safety zone around each of five locations where the Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF) wind turbine generator (WTG) foundations will be constructed in the navigable waters of the Rhode Island Sound, RI. These safety zones are intended to safeguard mariners from the hazards associated with construction of the BIWF WTG foundations. Vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within these safety zones while construction vessels and associated equipment are present, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from July 16, 2015 until September 30, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from Wednesday, July 1, 2015, to July 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2015-0227. To view documents mentioned in the preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, contact Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, telephone 401-435-2351, email [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing the docket, please contact Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms BIWF Block Island Wind Farm FR Federal Register NTM Notice To Mariners WTG Wind Turbine Generator NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Regulatory History and Information

    On April 21, 2015, we published a NPRM entitled “Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI” in the Federal Register (80 FR 22144). We received no comments on the rule.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. This provision authorizes an agency to make a rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register when the agency for good cause finds that delaying the effective period for 30 days or more is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because construction of the Block Island Wind Farm is scheduled to begin in early July, the environmental window within which construction can be conducted is short, and no comments opposing the safety zone were received in response to the NPRM. Therefore, it is impracticable to make this rule effective 30 days or more after publication in the Federal Register.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1., which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.

    This rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life and navigation, for both workers and the boating public, within the vicinity of the BIWF in Rhode Island Sound, RI.

    Background

    The Coast Guard is establishing a 500-yard safety zone around each of five locations where the BIWF WTG foundations will be constructed in the navigable waters of the Rhode Island Sound, RI, from July 1 to September 30, 2015. Locations of these platforms are:

    Platform Latitude Longitude WTG 1 41°7.544′ N 71°30.454′ W. WTG 2 41°7.196′ N 71°30.837′ W. WTG 3 41°6.886′ N 71°31.268′ W. WTG 4 41°6.612′ N 71°31.747′ W. WTG 5 41°6.383′ N 71°32.259′ W.

    These safety zones are intended to safeguard mariners from the hazards associated with construction of the BIWF WTG foundations. Vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within these safety zones while construction vessels and associated equipment are present unless authorized by the COTP, Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative.

    Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    No comments were received and no changes were made to the language contained in the NPRM.

    C. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.

    1. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

    We expect the adverse economic impact of this rule to be minimal. Although this regulation may have some adverse impact on the public, the potential impact will be minimized for the following reasons: Vessels will only be restricted from the safety zones during periods of actual construction activity from July 1 to September 30, 2015; and the BIWF is located approximately three miles offshore from Block Island and the safety zones are only 500-yards in radius centered on the five BIWF WTG foundation locations, allowing plenty of room for vessels to pass without having to divert a long distance around the construction areas.

    Notification of the BIWF construction activity and the effective enforcement periods of the associated safety zones will be made to mariners through the Rhode Island Port Safety Forum, and local and broadcast NTMs.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: Owners or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit, moor, or anchor within 500 yards of the five BIWF WTG foundation construction locations.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

    This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. A final categorical exclusion document and environmental checklist are located in the docket for this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T01-227 to read as follows:
    § 165.T01-227 Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI.

    (a) Location. Areas within a 500-yard radius of the following five positions are safety zones:

    Platform Latitude Longitude WTG 1 41°7.544′ N 71°30.454′ W. WTG 2 41°7.196′ N 71°30.837′ W. WTG 3 41°6.886′ N 71°31.268′ W. WTG 4 41°6.612′ N 71°31.747′ W. WTG 5 41°6.383′ N 71°32.259′ W.

    (b) Enforcement period. From July 1 to September 30, 2015, vessels will be prohibited from entering into any of these safety zones, when enforced, during construction activity of five Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF) wind turbine generators (WTG) located in the positions listed in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:

    Designated Representative. A “designated representative” is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector Southeastern New England (COTP), to act on his or her behalf.

    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in § 165.23 as well as the following regulations apply to the safety zones established in conjunction with the construction of the Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI. These regulations may be enforced for the duration of construction.

    (2) Vessels may not enter into, transit through, moor, or anchor in these safety zones during periods of enforcement unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative. Vessels permitted to transit must operate at a no-wake speed, in a manner which will not endanger construction vessels or associated equipment.

    (3) Failure to comply with a lawful direction from the Captain of the Port (COTP), Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    Dated: June 10, 2015. J.T. Kondratowicz, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Southeastern New England.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17484 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2011-0228] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL; Between Mile Markers 296.1 and 296.7 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile Marker 296.7 at specified times from August 3, 2015, through September 18, 2015. This action is necessary to protect the waterway, waterway users, and vessels from the hazards associated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's trial tests on the water for the Asian Carp studies.

    During the enforcement periods listed below, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying-up or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.930 will be enforced intermittently from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday through Friday, from August 3, 2015, through August 14, 2015. In the event of a postponement of the trial tests due to inclement weather or other unforeseen circumstances, this zone will be enforced intermittently from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday through Friday from August 24, 2015, through September 18, 2015, excluding September 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this document, call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Waterways Department, Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago, telephone 630-986-2155, email address [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR 165.930. Specifically, the Coast Guard will enforce this safety zone on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile Marker 296.7. Enforcement will occur intermittently from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday through Friday, from August 3, 2015, through August 14, 2015. In the event of a postponement of the trial tests due to inclement weather or other unforeseen circumstances, this zone will be enforced intermittently from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 17, 2015, through September 18, 2015, excluding September 7, 2015.

    This enforcement action is necessary because the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's trial tests on the water for Asian Carp studies pose risks to life and property. Because of these risks, it is necessary to control vessel movement during the operations to prevent injury and property loss.

    In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying up, or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated representative.

    Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port representative may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan on VHF channel 16.

    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will also provide notice through other means, which may include Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, and on-scene oral notice. Additionally, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan may notify representatives from the maritime industry through telephonic and email notifications.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17460 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2011-0228] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan Including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL; Between Mile Markers 286 and 286.5 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, in the vicinity of the Brandon Road Lock and Dam between Mile Marker 286 and Mile Marker 286.5 at specified times from August 17, 2015, through September 18, 2015. This action is necessary to protect the waterway, waterway users, and vessels from the hazards associated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's trial tests on the water for the Asian Carp studies. During the enforcement periods listed below, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying-up or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.930 will be enforced intermittently from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday through Friday, from August 17, 2015, through August 21, 2015. In the event of a postponement of the trial tests due to inclement weather or other unforeseen circumstances, this zone will be enforced intermittently from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday through Friday from August 24, 2015, through September 18, 2015, excluding September 7, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this document, call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Waterways Department, Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago, telephone 630-986-2155, email address [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR 165.930. Specifically, the Coast Guard will enforce this safety zone in the vicinity of the Brandon Road Lock and Dam between Mile Marker 286 and Mile Marker 286.5. Enforcement will occur intermittently from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday through Friday, from August 17, 2015, through August 21, 2015. In the event of a postponement of the trial tests due to inclement weather or other unforeseen circumstances, this zone will be enforced intermittently from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Monday through Friday from August 24, 2015, through September 18, 2015, excluding September 7, 2015.

    This enforcement action is necessary because the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's trial tests on the water for Asian Carp studies pose risks to life and property. Because of these risks, it is necessary to control vessel movement during the operations to prevent injury and property loss.

    In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, mooring, laying up, or anchoring within the enforced area of this safety zone by any person or vessel is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated representative.

    Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zone may request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan. Requests must be made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. The Captain of the Port representative may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan on VHF channel 16.

    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will also provide notice through other means, which may include Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, local news media, distribution in leaflet form, and on-scene oral notice. Additionally, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan may notify representatives from the maritime industry through telephonic and email notifications.

    Dated: June 30, 2015. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17459 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0595] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Town of Olcott Fireworks Display; Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Ontario during the Town of Olcott fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective without actual notice from July 16, 2015 until September 6, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from June 25, 2015 until July 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-0595]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email LTJG Amanda Garcia, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9343, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826 or 1-800-647-5527.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking TFR Temporary Final Rule A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be impracticable.

    B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define regulatory safety zones.

    Between 9:30 p.m. and 11 p.m. on July 10, 2015; July 23, 2015; August 13, 2015; August 27, 2015; and September 6, 2015, a fireworks display will be held on the shoreline of Lake Ontario in Olcott, NY. It is anticipated that numerous vessels will be in the immediate vicinity of the launch point. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that such a launch proximate to a gathering of watercraft pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris.

    C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Town of Olcott fireworks display. This zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 10, 2015; July 23, 2015; August 13, 2015; August 27, 2015; and September 6, 2015. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Ontario; Olcott, NY within a 1,050-foot radius of position 43°20′23.6″ N. and 078°43′09.5″ W. (NAD 83).

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this rule on small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Ontario on the evening of July 10, 2015; July 23, 2015; August 13, 2015; August 27, 2015; and September 6, 2015.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement, for only 90 minutes late in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 165.T09-0595 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0595 Safety Zone; Town of Olcott Fireworks Display; Lake Ontario, Olcott, NY.

    (a) Location. This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Ontario; Olcott, NY within a 1,050-foot radius of position 43°20′23.6″ N. and 078°43′09.5″ W. (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced on July 10, 2015; July 23, 2015; August 13, 2015; August 27, 2015; and September 6, 2015 from 9:30 p.m. until 11 p.m.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: June 25, 2015. B.W. Roche, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17483 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 4 RIN 2900-AP38 Agency Interpretation of Prosthetic Replacement of a Joint AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs is publishing interpretive guidance for diagnostic codes (DC) 5051 through 5056, which establish rating criteria for prosthetic implant replacements of joints of the musculoskeletal system. The Schedule for Rating Disabilities under these DCs allows for a 1-year, 100-percent disability evaluation upon prosthetic replacement of a joint. This final rule clarifies that VA's longstanding interpretation of DCs 5051 through 5056 is that a 100-percent evaluation will be in place for a period of one year when the total joint, rather than the partial joint, has been replaced by a prosthetic implant.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This final rule is effective July 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Li, Chief, Regulations Staff (211D), Compensation Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-9700. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Diagnostic codes (DCs) 5051 through 5056, under 38 CFR 4.71a, govern the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) for prosthetic replacement of joints under the musculoskeletal system. These DCs state that a 100-percent evaluation will be sustained for 1 year following the prosthetic replacement of the named joint. This period of total disability evaluation is designed to provide temporary convalescence for major surgery, such as total joint replacement. Following the convalescent period, a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or VA-approved examination is conducted to determine any residual disability, and a new rating evaluation is assigned based on such residuals.

    The field of orthopedic medicine has progressed to such a degree that total prosthetic replacement of a joint is not always necessary. Surgical procedures, sometimes referred to generally as “joint replacements,” may only require partial replacement of the disabled joint.1 Partial replacement has the benefit of not requiring the same length of time for convalescence.2 The progression of this area of medical science has raised an issue as to whether a veteran who undergoes a partial replacement of a joint is entitled to the 100-percent rating evaluation during the convalescent period under DCs 5051 through 5056.

    1 “Patients with osteoarthritis that is limited to just one part of the knee may be candidates for unicompartmental knee replacement (also called a `partial' knee replacement).” “Unicompartmental Knee Replacement,” American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Ortho Info, 1 (June 2010), http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=A00585 (last visited Mar. 19, 2014).

    2Id.

    VA has long interpreted “joint replacement,” as used in § 4.71a, to mean total joint replacement. Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) issued a precedential panel decision upholding VA's interpretation of § 4.71a. In Hudgens v. Gibson, 26 Vet. App. 558 (2014), the Veterans Court upheld the Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that DC 5055 applies only to total knee prosthetic replacements. The Veterans Court determined that the plain language of DC 5055 was unambiguous. Id. at 561. The Veterans Court found that the medical definition of “knee joint” encompassed three distinct compartments of the knee and that “[n]othing in the plain language of the regulation indicates that it applies to replacements of less than a complete knee joint . . .”. Id. In addition, the Veterans Court cited DC 5054, for hip joint prosthesis, as an example of when VA intends to evaluate partial joint replacement. Diagnostic Code 5054, also under § 4.71a, provides evaluation criteria for “[p]rosthetic replacement of the head of the femur or of the acetabulum” (italics added), which together make up the hip joint. Id. The Veterans Court concluded that “DC 5055 applies only to total knee replacements, as the Secretary has demonstrated in other parts of § 4.71(a) [sic] that he is aware of how to include partial joint replacements as part of disability rating criteria in other parts of § 4.71(a) [sic].” Id. at 562.

    In view of the above court decision, and VA's longstanding interpretation, VA is amending its regulations to clarify that the language of § 4.71a, Prosthetic Implants, which refers to replacement of the named joint, refers to replacement of the joint as a whole, except where it is otherwise stated under DC 5054. To avoid confusion in applying these DCs, VA is adding an explanatory note under 38 CFR 4.71a, directly above DCs 5051 through 5056, which notifies readers that “prosthetic replacement” means a total, not a partial, joint replacement, except as it is otherwise stated under DC 5054.

    This final rule provides interpretive guidance on VA's meaning of “prosthetic replacement” as noted in the preceding discussion and consistent with the recent Hudgens v. Gibson decision. This guidance does not represent a new agency interpretation or a substantive change to the eligibility criteria for any VA benefit; rather, it provides notice regarding VA's longstanding interpretation of its regulation on prosthetic implants, which the Veterans Court recently upheld. As such, VA is publishing this final rule without opportunity for public comment.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs finds that this is an interpretive rule, which, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), VA may promulgate without prior opportunity for public comment. See also Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1206 (2015). This rule merely restates VA's longstanding interpretation of its regulation, which the Veterans Court upheld. Therefore, a prior opportunity for notice and comment is unnecessary. Additionally, based on the above cited justification, VA finds good cause to dispense with the delayed-effective-date requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2).

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

    The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of this rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This final rule will directly affect only individuals and will not directly affect small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

    Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.100, Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Certain Disabled Veterans and Members of the Armed Forces; 64.104, Pension for Non-Service-Connected Disability for Veterans; 64.106, Specially Adapted Housing for Disabled Veterans; 64.109, Veterans Compensation for Service-Connected Disability; 64.116, Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert L. Nabors II, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 6, 2015, for publication.

    List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 4

    Disability benefits, Pensions, Veterans.

    Dated: July 13, 2015. William F. Russo, Acting Director, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 4 as set forth below:

    PART 4—SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES 1. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 1155, unless otherwise noted.

    Subpart B—Disability Ratings 2. In § 4.71a, add a note preceding the footnote after the table “Prosthetic Implants” to read as follows:
    § 4.71a Schedule of ratings—musculoskeletal system. PROSTHETIC IMPLANTS Note:

    The term “prosthetic replacement” in diagnostic codes 5051 through 5056 means a total replacement of the named joint. However, in DC 5054, “prosthetic replacement” means a total replacement of the head of the femur or of the acetabulum.

    3. Amend appendix A to part 4 by revising the entries for diagnostic codes 5051 through 5056 to read as follows: Appendix A to Part 4—Table of Amendments and Effective Dates Since 1946 Sec. Diagnostic Code No. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 5051 Added September 22, 1978. Note July 16, 2015. 5052 Added September 22, 1978. Note July 16, 2015. 5053 Added September 22, 1978. Note July 16, 2015. 5054 Added September 22, 1978. Note July 16, 2015. 5055 Added September 22, 1978. Note July 16, 2015. 5056 Added September 22, 1978. Note July 16, 2015. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-17417 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0329; FRL-9930-69-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington: Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Lead and 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a submittal by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) demonstrating that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010. Specifically, Ecology conducted an emissions inventory analysis and reviewed monitoring data to show that sources in Washington do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other state.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0329. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Programs Unit, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information please contact Jeff Hunt at (206) 553-0256, hu[email protected], or by using the above EPA, Region 10 address.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background Information II. Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review I. Background Information

    On October 15, 2008 (73 FR 66964) and January 22, 2010 (75 FR 6474), the EPA revised the Pb and NO2 NAAQS, respectively. Within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, states must submit SIPs meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2), often referred to as “infrastructure” requirements. On May 11, 2015, Ecology submitted a SIP revision to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements demonstrating that sources in Washington do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other state. On May 27, 2015, the EPA proposed to find that the Washington SIP meets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS (80 FR 30200). An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's reasons for approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on June 26, 2015. The EPA received no comments on the proposal.

    II. Final Action

    The EPA reviewed the May 11, 2015 submittal from Ecology demonstrating that sources in Washington do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS in any other state. The EPA has determined that the Washington SIP meets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

    III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and

    • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Washington's SIP is approved to apply on non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated September 3, 2013. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 6, 2015. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart WW—Washington 2. In § 52.2470, table 2 in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “Interstate Transport for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2470 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    Table 2—Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans Name of SIP
  • provision
  • Applicable geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State submittal date EPA Approval date Comments
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport *         *         *         *         *         *         * Interstate Transport for the 2008 Pb and 2010 NO2 NAAQS Statewide 5/11/15 7/16/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    [FR Doc. 2015-17467 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0360; FRL-9930-63-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Commonwealth of Virginia's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision adds two compounds to the list of substances not considered to be volatile organic compounds (VOC). EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on September 14, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by August 17, 2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0360 by one of the following methods:

    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    B. Email: [email protected].

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0360, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0360. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed when VOCs and nitrogen oxides react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and state governments limit the amount of VOCs that can be released into the atmosphere. VOCs have different levels of reactivity, that is, some VOCs react slowly or form less ozone, and therefore, changes in their emissions have limited effects on local or regional ozone pollution episodes. It has been EPA's policy that VOCs with a negligible level of reactivity should be excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC contained at 40 CFR 51.100(s) so as to focus control efforts on compounds that do significantly increase ozone concentrations. This is accomplished by adding the substance to a list of compounds not considered to be VOCs, and thus, excluded from the definition of VOC. EPA believes that exempting such compounds creates an incentive for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs. On August 28, 2013 (78 FR 53029) and October 22, 2013 (78 FR 62451), EPA revised the definition of VOC contained in 40 CFR 51.100 to exclude two substances from the definition of VOC. The compounds excluded from the definition of VOC are trans 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (also known as SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)) and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (also known as HFO-1234yf).

    II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On May 7, 2015, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal revision to its SIP which consists of adding two additional compounds to the list of substances that are not considered VOCs found at 9VAC5-10-20. These compounds are trans 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (also known as SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)) and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (also known as HFO-1234yf). The May 7, 2015 SIP revision will allow the Virginia SIP to mirror the Federal definition of VOC. EPA believes that by excluding these negligibly reactive compounds from the definition of VOC an incentive is created for industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly reactive compounds; therefore, the air quality in Virginia will not be negatively affected by the approval of these SIP revisions particularly as EPA has found these compounds negligibly reactive for ozone formation.

    III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the SIP revision to the definition of VOC submitted by Virginia on May 7, 2015. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on September 14, 2015 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 17, 2015. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) “privilege” for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and information about the content of those documents that are the product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or environment; or (4) are required by law.

    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the Privilege Law, Va. Code § 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege to documents and information “required by law,” including documents and information “required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval,” since Virginia must “enforce Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less stringent than their Federal counterparts . . .” The opinion concludes that “[r]egarding § 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these programs could not be privileged because such documents and information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.” Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that “[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,” any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since “no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.”

    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking action, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the definition of VOCs as described in section II of this rulemaking action. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

    • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking action.

    This action, revising the definition of VOCs, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 7, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart VV—Virginia
    2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding a new entry for “Section 5-10-20” immediately after the existing entries for “Section 5-10-20” to read as follows:
    § 52.2420 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation
  • [former SIP citation]
  • 9 VAC 5, Chapter 10 General Definitions [Part I] *         *         *         *         *         *         * 5-10-20 Terms Defined 3/12/15 7/16/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] Definition of VOC is revised by adding two chemicals (trans 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene and 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene) to the list of substances not considered to be VOCs. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2015-17386 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0902; FRL-9930-24-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Johnstown Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's request to redesignate to attainment the Johnstown Nonattainment Area (Johnstown Area or Area) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard). EPA has determined that the Johnstown Area attained both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is approving as a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) the associated maintenance plan to show maintenance of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 for the Johnstown Area. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) mobile vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Johnstown Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is approving for transportation conformity purposes. Furthermore, EPA is approving the 2007 base year emissions inventory included in the maintenance plan for the Johnstown Area for both NAAQS. These actions are being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0902. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rose Quinto at (215) 814-2182, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On December 3, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), formally submitted a request to redesignate the Johnstown Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Johnstown Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment throughout the Johnstown Area over the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is approving for transportation conformity purposes. PADEP also submitted a 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory that was included in the maintenance plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for NOX, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3).

    On April 23, 2015 (80 FR 22672), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for Pennsylvania. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's December 3, 2014 request to redesignate the Johnstown Area to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also proposed approval of the associated maintenance plan as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The maintenance plan included the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for both NAAQS which EPA proposed to approve for purposes of transportation conformity. In addition, EPA proposed approval of the 2007 emissions inventory also included in the maintenance plan for the Johnstown Area for both NAAQS to meet the emissions inventory requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

    The details of Pennsylvania's submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No adverse public comments were received on the NPR.

    II. Final Actions

    EPA is taking final actions on the redesignation request and SIP revisions submitted on December 3, 2014 by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the Johnstown Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. First, EPA finds that the monitoring data demonstrates that the Area has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and continues to attain both NAAQS. Second, EPA is approving Pennsylvania's redesignation request for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, because EPA has determined that the request meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for both NAAQS. Approval of this redesignation request will change the official designation of the Johnstown Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Third, EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for the Johnstown Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because it meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the Johnstown Area for transportation conformity purposes. In addition, EPA is approving the 2007 emissions inventory for the Johnstown Area as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for both NAAQS.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for this rulemaking action to become effective immediately upon publication. A delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which eliminates CAA obligations that would otherwise apply. The immediate effective date for this rulemaking action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rulemaking action, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, this rulemaking action relieves the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of the obligation to comply with nonattainment-related planning requirements for the Johnstown Area pursuant to part D of the CAA and approves certain emissions inventories and MVEBs for the Johnstown Area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this rulemaking action to become effective on the date of publication.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

    • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

    This action, approving the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Johnstown Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the comprehensive emissions inventory for the Johnstown Area for both NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 25, 2015. Shawn M Garvin, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for “1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Maintenance Plan and 2007 Base Year Emissions Inventory” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2020 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA Approval date Additional explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Maintenance Plan and 2007 Base Year Emissions Inventory Johnstown Area 12/3/14 7/16/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] See § 52.2036(w) and § 52.2059(r).
    3. Section 52.2036 is amended by adding and reserving paragraph (v) and adding paragraph (w) to read as follows:
    § 52.2036 Base year emissions inventory.

    (v) [Reserved]

    (w) EPA approves as a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan the 2007 base year emissions inventory for the Johnstown 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on December 3, 2014. The emissions inventory includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of point, area, nonroad, and onroad sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are PM2.5, nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ammonia (NH3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).

    4. Section 52.2059 is amended by adding and reserving paragraph (q) and adding paragraph (r) to read as follows:
    § 52.2059 Control strategy: Particular matter.

    (q) [Reserved]

    (r) EPA approves the maintenance plan for the Johnstown nonattainment area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on December 3, 2014. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX mobile vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) to be applied to all future transportation conformity determinations and analyses for the Johnstown nonattainment area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Johnstown Area's Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS for Cambria County in Tons per Year Type of control strategy SIP Year PM2.5 NOX Effective date of SIP approval Maintenance Plan 2017 62.79 1,707.03 7/16/15 2025 46.71 1,077.46 7/16/15 Johnstown Area's Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS for Indiana County (Partial) in Tons per Year Type of control strategy SIP Year PM2.5 NOX Effective date of SIP approval Maintenance Plan 2017 7.95 238.50 7/16/15 2025 4.38 120.98 7/16/15
    PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 5. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    6. In § 81.339, in the tables entitled “Pennsylvania—1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS” and “Pennsylvania—2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS” revise the entry for “Johnstown, PA” to read as follows:
    § 81.339 Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania—1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary and secondary] Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Classification Date 2 Type *         *         *         *         *         *         * Johnstown, PA: Cambria County 7/16/15 Attainment Indiana County (part) 7/16/15 Attainment Townships of West Wheatfield, Center, East Wheatfield, and Armagh Borough and Homer City Borough. *         *         *         *         *         *         * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 2 This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted. Pennsylvania—2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary and secondary] Designated area Designation a Date 1 Type Classification Date 2 Type *         *         *         *         *         *         * Johnstown, PA: Cambria County 7/16/15 Attainment Indiana County (part) 7/16/15 Attainment Townships of West Wheatfield, Center, East Wheatfield, and Armagh Borough and Homer City Borough *         *         *         *         *         *         * a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 1 This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted. 2 This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16921 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0050; FRL-9930-56-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request and Associated Maintenance Plan for the Lancaster Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's request to redesignate to attainment the Lancaster Nonattainment Area (Lancaster Area or Area) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard). EPA has determined that the Lancaster Area attained both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, EPA is approving as a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) the associated maintenance plan to show maintenance of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 for the Lancaster Area. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) mobile vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the Lancaster Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is approving for transportation conformity purposes. Furthermore, EPA is approving the 2007 base year emissions inventory included in the maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area for both NAAQS. These actions are being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0050. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leslie Jones Doherty at (215) 814-3409, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On April 30, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), formally submitted a request to redesignate the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, PADEP submitted a maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area as a SIP revision to ensure continued attainment throughout the Lancaster Area over the next 10 years. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which EPA is approving for transportation conformity purposes. PADEP also submitted a 2007 comprehensive emissions inventory that was included in the maintenance plan for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for NOX, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and ammonia (NH3).

    On May 1, 2015 (80 FR 24874), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for Pennsylvania. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's April 30, 2014 request to redesignate the Lancaster Area to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also proposed approval of the associated maintenance plan as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The maintenance plan included the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for both NAAQS which EPA proposed to approve for purposes of transportation conformity. In addition, EPA proposed approval of the 2007 emissions inventory also included in the maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area for both NAAQS to meet the emissions inventory requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

    The details of Pennsylvania's submittal and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No adverse public comments were received on the NPR.

    II. Final Actions

    EPA is taking final actions on the redesignation request and SIP revisions submitted on April 30, 2014 by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the Lancaster Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. First, EPA finds that the monitoring data demonstrates that the Area has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and continues to attain both NAAQS. Second, EPA is approving Pennsylvania's redesignation request for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, because EPA has determined that the request meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for both NAAQS. Approval of this redesignation request will change the official designation of the Lancaster Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Third, EPA is approving the associated maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because it meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs submitted by Pennsylvania for the Lancaster Area for transportation conformity purposes. In addition, EPA is approving the 2007 emissions inventory for the Lancaster Area as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for both NAAQS.

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for this rulemaking action to become effective immediately upon publication. A delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which eliminates CAA obligations that would otherwise apply. The immediate effective date for this rulemaking action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rulemaking action, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, this rulemaking action relieves the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania of the obligation to comply with nonattainment-related planning requirements for the Lancaster Area pursuant to part D of the CAA and approves certain emissions inventories and MVEBs for the Lancaster Area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for this rulemaking action to become effective on the date of publication.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

    • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 14, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

    This action, approving the redesignation request and maintenance plan for the Lancaster Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the comprehensive emissions inventory for the Lancaster Area for both NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: July 1, 2015. William C. Early, Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for “1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Maintenance Plan and 2007 Base Year Emissions Inventory” at the end of the table to read as follows:
    § 52.2020 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA Approval date Additional explanation *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Maintenance Plan and 2007 Base Year Emissions Inventory Lancaster Area 4/30/14 7/16/15 [Insert Federal Register citation] See § 52.2036(x) and § 52.2059(s)
    3. Section 52.2036 is amended by adding paragraph (x) to read as follows:
    § 52.2036 Base year emissions inventory.

    (x) EPA approves as a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan the 2007 base year emissions inventory for the Lancaster 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection on April 30, 2014. The emissions inventory includes emissions estimates that cover the general source categories of point, area, nonroad, and onroad sources. The pollutants that comprise the inventory are PM2.5, nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ammonia (NH3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).

    4. Section 52.2059 is amended by adding paragraph (s) to read as follows:
    § 52.2059 Control strategy: Particular matter.

    (s) EPA approves the maintenance plan for the Lancaster nonattainment area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on April 30, 2014. The maintenance plan includes the 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) mobile vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) to be applied to all future transportation conformity determinations and analyses for the Lancaster nonattainment area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

    Lancaster Area's Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS for Lancaster County in Tons per Year Type of control strategy SIP Year PM2.5 NOX Effective date of SIP approval Maintenance Plan 2017 249 6,916 July 16, 2015. 2025 185 4,447 July 16, 2015.
    PART 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES 5. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    6. In § 81.339, in the tables entitled “Pennsylvania—1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS” and “Pennsylvania—2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS” revise the entry for “Lancaster, PA” to read as follows:
    § 81.339 Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania—1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary and secondary] Designated area Designation Date 1 Type Classification Date 2 Type *         *         *         *         *         *         * Lancaster, PA: Lancaster County July 16, 2015 Attainment *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 2 This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted. Pennsylvania—2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary and secondary] Designated area Designation Date 1 Type Classification Date 2 Type *         *         *         *         *         *         * Lancaster, PA: Lancaster County July 16, 2015 Attainment *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted. 2 This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17471 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 82 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118; FRL-9930-55-OAR] RIN 2060-AG12 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 30 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Determination of acceptability.

    SUMMARY:

    This determination of acceptability expands the list of acceptable substitutes pursuant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. This action lists as acceptable additional substitutes for use in the refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; aerosols; and adhesives, coatings, and inks sectors.

    DATES:

    This determination is effective on July 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 (continuation of Air Docket A-91-42). All electronic documents in the docket are listed in the index at www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Air Docket (Nos. A-91-42 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118), EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), William J. Clinton West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gerald Wozniak by telephone at (202) 343-9624, by email at [email protected], or by mail at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 6205T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Overnight or courier deliveries should be sent to the office location at 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.

    For more information on the Agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for the evaluation of substitutes, refer to the original SNAP rulemaking published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13,044). Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program, as well as other EPA publications on protection of stratospheric ozone, are available at EPA's Ozone Depletion Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html including the SNAP portion at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning B. Foam Blowing C. Solvent Cleaning D. Aerosols E. Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks II. Section 612 Program A. Statutory Requirements and Authority for the SNAP Program B. EPA's Regulations Implementing Section 612 C. How the Regulations for the SNAP Program Work D. Additional Information about the SNAP Program Appendix A: Summary of Decisions for New Acceptable Substitutes I. Listing of New Acceptable Substitutes

    This action presents EPA's most recent decision to list as acceptable several substitutes in the refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvent cleaning; aerosols; and adhesives, coatings, and inks sectors. New substitutes are:

    • R-450A in new vending machines;

    • R-448A in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses;

    • R-513A in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses;

    • R-449A in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses;

    • Hydrofluoroolefin 1 (HFO)-1336mzz(Z) in rigid polyurethane spray foam (high-pressure, two-part uses only); and

    1 Hydrofluoroolefins are unsaturated hydrofluorocarbons having at least one double bond.

    • Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) in non-mechanical heat transfer, three solvent cleaning end-uses, aerosol solvents, and adhesives and coatings.

    For copies of the full list of acceptable substitutes for ozone depleting substances (ODS) in all industrial sectors, visit EPA's Ozone Layer Protection Web site at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists/index.html. Substitutes listed as unacceptable; acceptable, subject to narrowed use limits; or acceptable, subject to use conditions are also listed in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.

    The sections below discuss each substitute listing in detail. Appendix A contains tables summarizing today's listing decisions for these new substitutes. The statements in the “Further Information” column in the tables provide additional information, but are not legally binding under section 612 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the “Further Information” column may not include a comprehensive list of other legal obligations you may need to meet when using the substitute. Although you are not required to follow recommendations in the “Further Information” column of the table to use a substitute consistent with section 612 of the CAA, some of these statements may refer to obligations that are enforceable or binding under federal or state programs other than the SNAP program. In many instances, the information simply refers to standard operating practices in existing industry standards and/or building codes. When using these substitutes, EPA strongly encourages you to apply the information in this column. Many of these recommendations, if adopted, would not require significant changes to existing operating practices.

    You can find submissions to EPA for the substitutes listed in this document, as well as other materials supporting the decisions in this action, in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov.

    A. Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 1. R-450A

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-450A acceptable as a substitute for use in new equipment in vending machines.

    R-450A, marketed under the trade name Solstice® N-13, is a weighted blend of 42 percent hydrofluorocarbon (HFC)-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2) and 58 percent HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Solstice® N-13 (R-450A) SNAP Information Notice.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration, Vending Machines, and Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: R-450A”

    EPA previously listed R-450A as acceptable for use as a refrigerant in several refrigeration and air conditioning end-uses (October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62,863).

    Environmental information: R-450A has an ozone depletion potential (ODP) of zero. Its components, HFC-134a and HFO-1234ze(E), have global warming potentials (GWPs) of 1,430 2 and one to six,3 respectively. When these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-450A has a 100-year integrated GWP (100-yr GWP) of about 600. The components of R-450A are both excluded from the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC) under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).4

    2 Unless otherwise stated, all GWPs in this document are from: IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor M., and Miller, H. L. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This document is accessible at www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.

    3 Hodnebrog, Ø., Etminan, M., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Marston, G., Myhre, G., Nielsen, C. J., Shine, K. P., Wallington, T. J., Global Warming Potentials and Radiative Efficiencies of Halocarbons and Related Compounds: A Comprehensive Review, Reviews of Geophysics, 51, 300-378, doi:10.1002/rog.20013, 2013; Javadi, M. S., Søndergaard, R., Nielsen, O. J., Hurley, M. D., and Wallington, T. J.: Atmospheric chemistry of trans-CF3CH=CHF: products and mechanisms of hydroxyl radical and chlorine atom initiated oxidation. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 8, 3141-3147, 2008.

    4 For more information, including definitions, see 40 CFR part 82 subpart F.

    Flammability information: R-450A as formulated and in the worst-case fractionation formulation is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has established Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (WEELs) of 1,000 ppm and 800 ppm as 8-hour time-weighted averages (TWAs) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234ze(E), the components of R-450A, respectively. The manufacturer of R-450A recommends an acceptable exposure limit (AEL) for the workplace of 880 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL, and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the manufacturer's safety data sheet (SDS), in the American Society for Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: R-450A has an ODP of zero, comparable 5 to or lower than other listed substitutes. R-450A's GWP of about 600 is higher than that of some acceptable substitutes in this end-use, such as CO2 with a GWP of one and propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441A with GWPs ranging from three to eight; is comparable to IKON-B's GWP of approximately 550; and is lower than FRIGC FR-12's GWP of approximately 1,080.6 Flammability risks are low, as discussed above, and are comparable to flammability risks of other available substitutes in the same end-use. The toxicity risks are similar to those for many other refrigerants and, as with those other refrigerants, can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry; moreover, these risks are common to many refrigerants, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP.

    5 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC)-22 with an ODP of 0.055.

    6 Propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441A are acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this end-use. These three substitutes are subject to a use condition restricting charge sizes to 150 grams (g) or less and thus may limit their use for equipment that requires larger charge sizes.

    EPA finds R-450A acceptable in the end-use listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by R-450A is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes acceptable in the same end-use.

    2. R-448A

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-448A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Commercial ice machines (new and retrofit equipment) • Refrigerated transport (new and retrofit equipment) • Retail food refrigeration—low-temperature stand-alone equipment (i.e., equipment designed to maintain internal temperatures at 32 °F (0° C) or below) (new and retrofit equipment) • Retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems and remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-448A, marketed under the trade name Solstice® N-40, is a weighted blend of 26 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 26 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 21 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); 20 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No 754-12-1); and 7 percent HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Solstice® N-40 (R-448A) SNAP Information Notice.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration and Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: R-448A”

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Refrigerated Transport Substitute: R-448A”

    Environmental information: R-448A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, HFO-1234yf, and HFO-1234ze(E) have GWPs of 675; 3,500; 1,430; one to four; 7 8 and one to six; 9 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-448A has a GWP of about 1,390. The components of R-448A are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    7 Hodnebrog et al., 2013. Op. cit.

    8 Nielsen, O. J., Javadi, M. S., Sulbaek Andersen, M. P., Hurley, M. D., Wallington, T. J., Singh, R. Atmospheric chemistry of CF3CF=CH2: Kinetics and mechanisms of gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH radicals, and O3. Chemical Physics Letters 439, 18-22, 2007.

    9 Hodnebrog et al., 2013 and Javadi et al., 2008. Op. cit.

    Flammability information: R-448A as formulated and in the worst-case fractionation formulation is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf; and 800 ppm for HFO-1234ze(E), the components of R-448A. The manufacturer of R-448A recommends an AEL of 890 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the AIHA WEELs and manufacturer's AEL, and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-448A has an ODP of zero, comparable 10 to or lower than the other substitutes acceptable in these end-uses.

    10 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-12, R-502A, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    In refrigerated transport, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as HFC-134a, R-404A, and other HFC refrigerant blends, with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to approximately 3,990; other substitutes listed as acceptable substitutes for refrigerated transport have a lower GWP including R-450A, CO2, direct nitrogen expansion, and Stirling cycle, with GWPs ranging from zero to about 600.

    For commercial ice machines, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as HFC-134a, R-404A, and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 1,400 to 3,990; other substitutes listed as acceptable substitutes for commercial ice machines have a lower GWP including ammonia absorption, ammonia vapor compression, Stirling cycle, and R-450A with GWPs ranging from zero to about 600.

    R-448A's GWP of about 1,390 is comparable to or lower than a number of other substitutes listed as acceptable in retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems and remote condensing units, including three of the more commonly used substitutes at this time: HFC-134a, R-407A, and R-407C, with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to approximately 2,110. R-448A's GWP of about 1,390 is higher than the GWP of some other acceptable substitutes in retail food refrigeration—supermarket refrigeration systems and remote condensing units, including CO2 with a GWP of one and R-450A with a GWP of about 600.

    R-448A's GWP of about 1,390 is comparable to the GWP of several refrigerants listed as acceptable for the retail food refrigeration-low-temperature stand-alone equipment end-use: HFC-134a with a GWP of 1430 and a number of HFC blends with GWPs in the range of 1,100 to 1,500.11 The GWP of R-448A is higher than that of some other listed substitutes for the low-temperature stand-alone equipment end-use, including CO2, propane, isobutane, and R-441A (with GWPs ranging from one to eight).

    11 Historically, under the SNAP listings, we have not subdivided the retail food refrigeration—stand-alone equipment end-use. In the final rule that changes the status of certain refrigerants for this end-use and which we are issuing contemporaneously with this action, we have determined that the refrigerant choices for low-temperature stand-alone equipment, for which greater cooling capacity is required, are more limited than for other stand-alone equipment (which we refer to as medium-temperature equipment). In that action, we subdivided the stand-alone equipment end-use. Therefore, in this action we are evaluating low-temperature equipment and medium-temperature equipment as separate end-uses.

    Flammability risks are low, as discussed above, and are comparable to flammability risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15, and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry; moreover, those risks are common to many refrigerants, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for these same end-uses.

    EPA finds R-448A acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by R-448A is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-uses.

    3. R-513A

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-513A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Centrifugal chillers (new and retrofit equipment) • Cold storage warehouses (new and retrofit equipment) • Commercial ice machines (new and retrofit equipment) • Household refrigerators and freezers (new and retrofit equipment) • Industrial process air-conditioning (new and retrofit equipment) • Industrial process refrigeration (new and retrofit equipment) • Reciprocating, screw and scroll chillers (new and retrofit equipment) • Refrigerated transport (new and retrofit equipment) • Retail food refrigeration—low-temperature and medium-temperature 12 stand-alone equipment (new and retrofit equipment)

    12 As provided in the listing decision for R-448A for retail food refrigeration, we are making separate listing decisions for low-temperature stand-alone equipment (i.e. equipment designed to maintain internal temperatures at 32 °F (0 °C) or below) and medium-temperature equipment (i.e., stand-alone equipment designed to maintain internal temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C).

    • Retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems and remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment) • Vending machines (new and retrofit equipment) • Water coolers (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-513A, marketed under the trade name Opteon® XP 10, is a weighted blend of 44 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2 tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and 56 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Opteon® XP 10 (R-513A) SNAP Information Notice.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Chillers and Industrial Process Air Conditioning Substitute: R-513A” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Cold Storage Warehouses and Industrial Process Refrigeration Substitute: R-513A” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Household Refrigerators and Freezers and Water Coolers Substitute: R-513A” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Refrigerated Transport Substitute: R-513A” • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration, Vending Machines, and Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: R-513A”

    Environmental information: R-513A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, have GWPs of 1,430 and one to four,13 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-513A has a GWP of about 630. The components of R-513A are both excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    13 Hodnebrog et al., 2013 and Nielsen et al., 2007. Op. cit.

    Flammability information: R-513A as formulated and in the worst-case fractionation formulation is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm as an 8-hour TWA for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively, the components of R-513A. The manufacturer of R-513A recommends an AEL of 653 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL, and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-513A has an ODP of zero, comparable 14 to or lower than other listed substitutes in these end-uses.

    14 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502A, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    R-513A's GWP of about 630 is comparable to or lower than a number of other substitutes in retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems and remote condensing units, including R-450A, HFC-134a, R-407A, R-407C, and a number of HFC blends, with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 2,110. R-513's GWP of about 630 is higher than those of some other acceptable substitutes in new retail food refrigeration—supermarket refrigeration systems and remote condensing units, including CO2 with a GWP of one.

    In retail food refrigeration—low-temperature stand-alone equipment, R-513A's GWP of about 630 is comparable to or lower than a number of other substitutes, including IKON B, R-450A, FRIGC FR-12, HFC-134a, and R-426Awith GWPs ranging from approximately 550 to approximately 1,500. In retail food-refrigeration—medium temperature stand-alone equipment and vending machines, R-513A's GWP of about 630 is higher than that of some acceptable substitutes in this end-use, such as CO2 with a GWP of one and propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441A with GWPs ranging from three to eight; is comparable to the GWPs of IKON-B and R-450A, which are approximately 550 to 600; and is lower than FRIGC FR-12's GWP of approximately 1,080.15

    15 Propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441A are acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this end-use. These three substitutes are subject to a use condition restricting charge sizes to 150 g or less and thus may limit their use for equipment that requires larger charge sizes.

    In refrigerated transport, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as R-450A, HFC-134a, R-404A, and other HFC refrigerant blends, with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to approximately 3,990; acceptable substitutes for refrigerated transport with a lower GWP include CO2, direct nitrogen expansion, and Stirling cycle, with GWPs in the range of zero to one.

    For cold storage warehouses and industrial process refrigeration, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as R-450A, HFC-134a, R-404A, and other HFC refrigerant blends, with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to approximately 3,990; acceptable substitutes for new cold storage warehouses and for industrial process refrigeration with a lower GWP include CO2 and ammonia with GWPs in the range of zero to one.

    For commercial ice machines, most other substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as R-450A, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,990. Ammonia vapor compression with a GWP of zero is also an acceptable substitute in this end-use.

    In household refrigerators and freezers, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs than R-513A, such as R-450A, R-134a, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,990. R-513A's GWP of approximately 630 is higher than those of some other acceptable substitutes in this end-use for new equipment, including propane, isobutane, and R-441A 16 (with GWPs ranging from three to eight), and HFC-152a with a GWP of 124.

    16 Propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441Aare acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this end-use. These three substitutes are subject to a use condition restricting charge sizes to 57 g or less and thus may limit their use for equipment that requires larger charge sizes.

    For centrifugal, reciprocating, screw and scroll chillers, most other substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as R-450A, R-134a, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,990. In these end-uses, acceptable substitutes with lower GWPs for new equipment include ammonia absorption and ammonia vapor compression, HFO-1234ze(E), and for centrifugal chillers only, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoroprop-1-ene, with GWPs in the range of zero to seven.

    For industrial process air conditioning and water coolers, all other substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs, such as R-450A, R-134a, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 600 to 3,990.

    Flammability risks are low, as discussed above, and are comparable to flammability risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry; moreover, those risks are common to many refrigerants, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for these same end-uses.

    EPA finds R-513A acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by R-513A is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-uses.

    4. R-449A

    EPA's decision: EPA finds R-449A acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Commercial ice machines (new and retrofit equipment) • Refrigerated transport (new and retrofit equipment) • Retail food refrigeration—low-temperature stand-alone equipment (new and retrofit equipment) • Retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems and remote condensing units (new and retrofit equipment)

    R-449A, marketed under the trade name Opteon® XP 40, is a weighted blend of 24.3 percent HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); 24.7 percent HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); 25.7 percent HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and 25.3 percent HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “Opteon® XP 40 (R-449A) SNAP Information Notice.” EPA performed assessments to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. These assessments are available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following names:

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Refrigerated Transport Substitute:

    R-449A”

    • “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Use in Retail Food Refrigeration and

    Commercial Ice Machines Substitute: R-449A”

    Environmental information: R-449A has an ODP of zero. Its components, HFC-32, HFC-125, HFC-134a, and HFO-1234yf have GWPs of 675; 3,500; 1,430; and one to four,17 respectively. If these values are weighted by mass percentage, then R-449A has a GWP of about 1,400. The components of R-449A are excluded from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    17 Hodnebrog et al., 2013 and Nielsen et al., 2007. Op. cit.

    Flammability information: R-449A as formulated and in the worst-case fractionation formulation is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include drowsiness or dizziness. The substitute may also irritate the skin or eyes or cause frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm as an 8-hr TWA for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf, the components of R-449A. The manufacturer of R-449A recommends an AEL of 830 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for the blend. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet each of the AIHA WEELs and the manufacturer's AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS, in ASHRAE 15, and other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: R-449A has an ODP of zero, comparable 18 to or lower than the other substitutes acceptable in these end-uses.

    18 This is in contrast to the historically used ODS CFC-12, R-502A, and HCFC-22 with ODPs ranging from 0.055 to 1.0.

    In refrigerated transport, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs than R-449's GWP of about 1,400, such as HFC-134a, R-404A, and other HFC refrigerant blends, with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to approximately 3,990; other substitutes listed as acceptable substitutes for refrigerated transport have a lower GWP including R-450A, CO2, direct nitrogen expansion, and Stirling cycle, with GWPs ranging from zero to about 600.

    For commercial ice machines, many substitutes listed as acceptable have comparable or higher GWPs than R-449's GWP of about 1,400, such as HFC-134a, R-404A and other HFC blends with GWPs ranging from approximately 1,400 to 3,990; other substitutes listed as acceptable substitutes for commercial ice machines have a lower GWP including ammonia absorption, ammonia vapor compression, Stirling cycle and R-450A, with GWPs ranging from zero to about 600.

    R-449A's GWP of about 1,400 is comparable to or lower than a number of other substitutes listed as acceptable in retail food refrigeration—supermarket systems and remote condensing units, including three of the more commonly used substitutes at this time: HFC-134a, R-407A, and R-407C, with GWPs ranging from 1,430 to approximately 2,110. R-449A's GWP of about 1,400 is higher than the GWP of some other acceptable substitutes in retail food refrigeration—supermarket refrigeration systems and remote condensing units, including CO2 with a GWP of one and R-450A with a GWP of about 600.

    R-449A's GWP of about 1,400 is comparable to the GWP of substitutes listed as acceptable for retail food refrigeration—low-temperature stand-alone equipment, including HFC-134a of 1,430 and a number of HFC blends with GWPs in the range of 1,100 to 1,500 and is higher than those of some other listed substitutes in this end-use, including CO2 with a GWP of one and propane, isobutane, and R-441A (with GWPs ranging from three to eight).19

    19 Propane (R-290), isobutane (R-600a), and R-441A are acceptable, subject to use conditions, in this end-use. These three substitutes are subject to a use condition restricting charge sizes to 150 g or less and thus may limit their use for equipment that requires larger charge sizes.

    Flammability risks are low, as discussed above, and are comparable to flammability risks of other available substitutes in the same end-uses. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the AIHA WEELs, ASHRAE 15 and other industry standards, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry; moreover, those risks are common to many refrigerants, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP in these same end-uses.

    EPA finds R-449A acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by R-449A is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-uses.

    5. Methoxytridecafluoroheptene Isomers (MPHE)

    EPA's decision: EPA finds methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers acceptable as a substitute for use in new and retrofit equipment in non-mechanical heat transfer. 20

    20 Acceptable substitutes for organic Rankine cycle have typically been included through listings in the non-mechanical heat transfer end-use. EPA may review organic Rankine cycle applications separately in the future.

    MPHE, marketed under the trade name SineraTM, is a HFO. It is a mixture of structural and stereo isomers, represented as C7F13(OCH3). Trans-5-methoxy-perfluoro-3-heptene is the most prevalent isomer in the mixture (approximately 50 percent), and eight isomeric structures have been identified, comprising more than 99% of the material.

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “SNAP Information Notice for Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) Received July 2, 2012.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the following name, “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Non-mechanical Heat Transfer Substitute: Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers.”

    Environmental information: MPHE has an ODP of zero. The 100-yr GWP of MPHE is 2.5 and it has an atmospheric lifetime of approximately nine days. MPHE is regulated as a VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)) addressing the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Knowingly venting or releasing this refrigerant blend is limited by the venting prohibition under section 608(c)(2) of the CAA, codified at 40 CFR 82.154(a)(1).

    Flammability information: MPHE is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of exposure to this substitute include serious eye irritation, skin irritation, and respiratory tract irritation. Ingestion of MPHE may also be harmful. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many refrigerants.

    EPA anticipates that MPHE will be used in a manner consistent with the recommendations specified in the SDS. The manufacturer recommends an AEL of 500 ppm on an 8-hour TWA. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the AEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and in any other safety precautions common to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: MPHE has an ODP of zero, comparable 21 to or lower than other acceptable substitutes in this same end-use. Additionally, MPHE's GWP of 2.5 is lower than or comparable to the GWP of other acceptable substitutes in the same end-use, such as C7 Fluoroketone, HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-245fa, and HFC-125 (with GWPs ranging from about one to 3,500). Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the manufacturer's AEL, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the refrigeration and air conditioning industry; moreover, those risks are common to many heat transfer fluids, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP.

    21 In contrast, the historically used ODS HCFC-123, HCFC-22, and CFC-113 have ODPs ranging from 0.01 to 0.8.

    EPA finds MPHE acceptable in the end-use listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by MPHE is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-use.

    B. Foam Blowing 1. HFO-1336mzz(Z) (Formacel® 1100)

    EPA's decision: EPA finds HFO-1336mzz(Z) acceptable as a substitute for use in rigid polyurethane spray foam (high-pressure, two-part uses only). 22

    22 Historically, under the SNAP listings, we have not subdivided the rigid polyurethane (PU) spray foam end-use. In the final rule that we are issuing contemporaneously with this action, we have determined that the foam blowing agent choices differ for rigid PU high-pressure two-part spray foam, rigid PU low-pressure two-part spray foam, and rigid PU one-component foam sealants. Therefore, in this action we are evaluating high-pressure two-part spray foam as a separate end-use from rigid PU low-pressure two-part spray foam and rigid PU one-component foam sealants.

    HFO-1336mzz(Z) is also known as (Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene and cis-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene (CAS Reg. No. 692-49-9), and goes by the trade names of FEA-1100 and Formacel® 1100.

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “SNAP Information Notice for FEA-1100 as a Foam Blowing Agent Received 8/3/11.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the name, “Risk Screen on Substitutes for Spray Foam Substitute: HFO-1336mzz(Z) (Formacel® 1100).”

    We have previously listed HFO-1336mzz(Z) as a foam blowing agent in a number of other foam blowing end-uses (October 21, 2014, 79 FR 62,863).

    Environmental information: HFO-1336mzz(Z) has an ODP of zero. It has a 100-yr GWP of about nine.23 HFO-1336mzz(Z) is a VOC. The manufacturer has petitioned EPA to exempt HFO-1336mzz(Z) from the definition of VOC under CAA regulations (see 40 CFR 51.100(s)), which addresses the development of SIPs to attain and maintain the NAAQS, based on its claim that the chemical exhibits low photochemical reactivity.

    23 Baasandorj, M., Ravishankara, A.R., Burkholder, J.B., Atmospheric Chemistry of (Z)-CF3CH═CHCF3: OH Radical Reaction Rate Coefficient and Global Warming Potential, Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 2011, 115, 10,539-10,549, 2011.

    Flammability information: HFO-1336mzz(Z) is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: Potential health effects of this substitute include skin or eye irritation or frostbite. At sufficiently high concentrations, the substitute may cause irregular heartbeat. The substitute could cause asphyxiation if air is displaced by vapors in a confined space. These potential health effects are common to many foam blowing agents. Additionally, as described in the Premanufacture Notice (PMN), exposure to consumers is expected to be minimal since HFO-1336mzz(Z) is not domestically manufactured or used by consumers. EPA issued a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on June 5, 2015, to require persons to submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process HFO-1336mzz(Z) for consumer use (80 FR 32,003, 32,005).

    EPA anticipates that HFO-1336mzz(Z) will be used consistent with the recommendations specified in the SDS. The WEEL committee of the Occupational Alliance for Risk Science (OARS) recommends a WEEL for the workplace of 500 ppm on an 8-hour TWA.24 EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the WEEL and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and other safety precautions common to the foam blowing industry.

    24 The documentation may be viewed at www.tera.org/OARS/HFO-1336mzz-Z%20WEEL%20FINAL.pdf.

    Comparison to other foam blowing agents: HFO-1336mzz(Z) has an ODP of zero, comparable 25 to or lower than other acceptable non-ozone-depleting substitutes for the rigid PU high-pressure, two-part spray foam end-use. HFO-1336mzz(Z)'s GWP of about nine is lower than or comparable to other acceptable substitutes in this end-use, such as HFC-245fa with a GWP of 1,070; commercial blends of HFC-365mfc and HFC-227ea containing 7% to 13% HFC-227ea and the remainder HFC-365mfc, with GWPs ranging from about 900 to 1,100; trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene and water, with GWPs of one to seven 26 27 28 and zero, respectively. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the OARS WEEL, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the foam blowing industry; moreover, those risks are common to many foam blowing agents, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for this end-use.

    25 In contrast, the historically used ODS CFC-11 and HCFC-141b have ODPs ranging from 0.1 to 1.0.

    26 Wang D., Olsen S., and Wuebbles D. Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone. Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011; Hodnebrog et al., 2013. Op. cit.

    27 Sulbaek Andersen, M.P., Nilsson, E.J.K., Nielsen, O.J., Johnson, M.S., Hurley, M.D., and Wallington, T.J. Atmospheric chemistry of trans-CF3CH=CHCl: Kinetics of the gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH radicals, and O3”, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 199, 92-97, 2008.

    28 Wang D., Olsen S., and Wuebbles D. Three-Dimensional Model Evaluation of the Global Warming Potentials for tCFP. Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. Draft report, undated.

    EPA finds HFO-1336mzz(Z) acceptable in the end-use listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by HFO-1336mzz(Z) is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-use.

    C. Solvent Cleaning 1. Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE)

    EPA's decision: EPA finds methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers acceptable as a substitute for use in:

    • Electronics cleaning • Metals cleaning • Precision cleaning

    MPHE, marketed under the trade name SionTM, is an HFO. It is a mixture of structural and stereo isomers, represented as C7F13(OCH3). Trans-5-methoxy-perfluoro-3-heptene is the most prevalent isomer in the mixture (approximately 50 percent), and eight isomeric structures have been identified, comprising more than 99% of the material.

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “SNAP Information Notice for Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) Received July 2, 2012.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the name, “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Metals Cleaning, Electronics Cleaning, and Precision Cleaning Substitute: Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers.”

    Environmental information: The environmental information for this substitute is set forth in the “Environmental information” section in listing A.5.

    Flammability information: MPHE is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: The toxicity information for this substitute is set forth in the “Toxicity and exposure data” section in listing I.A.5. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the manufacturer's AEL of 500 ppm on an 8-hr TWA and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and in any other safety precautions common to the solvent cleaning industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: MPHE has an ODP of zero, comparable 29 to or lower than the ODP of other substitutes in these three end-uses. MPHE's GWP of 2.5 is lower than or comparable to those of other acceptable substitutes in these three end-uses, such as acetone, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, HFE-7100, and HFC-4310meewith GWPs of 0.5, one to seven,30 less than ten, 297, and 1,640, respectively. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the manufacturer's AEL, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the solvent cleaning industry; moreover, those risks are common to many solvents, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP for these same end-uses.

    29 In contrast, the historically used ODS CFC-113, methyl chloroform, HCFC-225ca, and HCFC-225cb have ODPs ranging from 0.02 to 0.8.

    30 Wang et al., 2011; Sulbaek Andersen et al., 2008; and Wang et al., undated; Hodnebrog et al., 2013. Op cit.

    EPA finds MPHE acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by MPHE is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-uses.

    D. Aerosols 1. Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE)

    EPA's decision: EPA finds methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers acceptable as a substitute for use as an aerosol solvent.

    MPHE is a HFO. It is a mixture of structural and stereo isomers, represented as C7F13(OCH3). Trans-5-methoxy-perfluoro-3-heptene is the most prevalent isomer in the mixture (approximately 50 percent), and eight isomeric structures have been identified, comprising more than 99% of the material.

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “SNAP Information Notice for Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) Received July 2, 2012.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the name, “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Aerosol Solvents Substitute: Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers.”

    Environmental information: The environmental information for this substitute is set forth in the “Environmental information” section in listing I.A.5.

    Flammability information: MPHE is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: The toxicity information for this substitute is set forth in the “Toxicity and exposure data” section in listing I.A.5.

    EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the manufacturer's AEL of 500 ppm on an 8-hour TWA and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and in any other safety precautions common to the aerosol solvent industry.

    Comparison to other substitutes in this end-use: MPHE has an ODP of zero, comparable 31 to or lower than other acceptable substitutes in this end-use. MPHE's GWP of 2.5 is lower than or comparable to the GWP of other acceptable substitutes in the same end-use, such as acetone, trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, HFE-7100, and HFC-4310mee with GWPs of 0.5, one to seven,32 less than ten, 297, and 1,640, respectively. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the manufacturer's AEL, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the aerosol solvent industry; moreover, those risks are common to many aerosol solvents, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP.

    31 In contrast, the historically used ODS methyl chloroform, CFC-113, HCFC-141b, HCFC-225ca and HCFC-225cb have ODPs ranging from 0.02 to 0.8.

    32 Wang et al., 2011; Sulbaek Andersen et al., 2008; and Wang et al., undated; Hodnebrog et al., 2013. Op cit.

    EPA finds MPHE acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by MPHE is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-uses.

    E. Adhesives, Coatings and Inks 1. Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE)

    EPA's decision: EPA finds methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers acceptable as a substitute for use as a carrier solvent in:

    • Adhesives • Coatings

    MPHE, marketed under the trade name SuprionTM, is an HFO. It is a mixture of structural and stereo isomers, represented as C7F13(OCH3). Trans-5-methoxy-perfluoro-3-heptene is the most prevalent isomer in the mixture (approximately 50 percent), and eight isomeric structures have been identified, comprising more than 99% of the material.

    You may find the redacted submission in Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 at www.regulations.gov under the name, “SNAP Information Notice for Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) Received July 2, 2012.” EPA performed an assessment to examine the health and environmental risks of this substitute. This assessment is available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118 under the name, “Risk Screen on Substitutes in Adhesives and Coatings Substitute: Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers.”

    Environmental information: The environmental information for this substitute is set forth in the “Environmental information” section in listing I.A.5.

    Flammability information: MPHE is not flammable.

    Toxicity and exposure data: The toxicity information for this substitute is set forth in the “Toxicity and exposure data” section in listing I.A.5. EPA anticipates that users will be able to meet the manufacturer's AEL of 500 ppm on an 8-hour TWA and address potential health risks by following requirements and recommendations in the SDS and in any other safety precautions common to the adhesives and coatings industries.

    Comparison to other substitutes in these end-uses: MPHE has an ODP of zero, comparable 33 to or lower than other acceptable substitutes in these two end-uses. MPHE's GWP of 2.5 is lower than or comparable to those of other acceptable substitutes in the same end-use, such as acetone, trans-1-chloroprop-1-ene, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene and HFE-7100 with GWPs of 0.5, one to seven,34 less than ten, and 297, respectively. Flammability risks are low, as discussed above. Toxicity risks can be minimized by use consistent with the manufacturer's AEL, recommendations in the SDS, and other safety precautions common in the adhesives and coatings industries; moreover, those risks are common to many carrier solvents for adhesives and coatings, including many of those already listed as acceptable under SNAP.

    33 In contrast, the historically used ODS methyl chloroform and HCFC-141b have ODPs respectively of 0.1 and 0.11.

    34 Wang et al., 2011; Sulbaek Andersen et al., 2008; and Wang et al., undated; Hodnebrog et al., 2013. Op cit.

    EPA finds MPHE acceptable in the end-uses listed above, because the overall environmental and human health risk posed by MPHE is lower than or comparable to the risks posed by other substitutes found acceptable in the same end-uses.

    II. Section 612 Program A. Statutory Requirements and Authority for the SNAP Program

    Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to develop a program for evaluating alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. EPA refers to this program as the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. The major provisions of section 612 are:

    1. Rulemaking

    Section 612(c) requires EPA to promulgate rules making it unlawful to replace any class I substance (CFC, halon, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide, hydrobromofluorocarbon, and chlorobromomethane) or class II substance (HCFC) with any substitute that the Administrator determines may present adverse effects to human health or the environment where the Administrator has identified an alternative that (1) reduces the overall risk to human health and the environment, and (2) is currently or potentially available.

    2. Listing of Unacceptable/Acceptable Substitutes

    Section 612(c) requires EPA to publish a list of the substitutes unacceptable for specific uses and to publish a corresponding list of acceptable alternatives for specific uses. The list of “acceptable” substitutes is found at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/lists and the lists of “unacceptable,” “acceptable subject to use conditions,” and “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits” substitutes are found in the appendices to 40 CFR part 82 subpart G.

    3. Petition Process

    Section 612(d) grants the right to any person to petition EPA to add a substance to, or delete a substance from, the lists published in accordance with section 612(c). The Agency has 90 days to grant or deny a petition. Where the Agency grants the petition, EPA must publish the revised lists within an additional six months.

    4. 90-day Notification

    Section 612(e) directs EPA to require any person who produces a chemical substitute for a class I substance to notify the Agency not less than 90 days before new or existing chemicals are introduced into interstate commerce for significant new uses as substitutes for a class I substance. The producer must also provide the Agency with the producer's unpublished health and safety studies on such substitutes.

    5. Outreach

    Section 612(b)(1) states that the Administrator shall seek to maximize the use of federal research facilities and resources to assist users of class I and II substances in identifying and developing alternatives to the use of such substances in key commercial applications.

    6. Clearinghouse

    Section 612(b)(4) requires the Agency to set up a public clearinghouse of alternative chemicals, product substitutes, and alternative manufacturing processes that are available for products and manufacturing processes which use class I and II substances.

    B. EPA's Regulations Implementing Section 612

    On March 18, 1994, EPA published the initial SNAP rule (59 FR 13,044) which established the process for administering the SNAP program and issued EPA's first lists identifying acceptable and unacceptable substitutes in the major industrial use sectors (subpart G of 40 CFR part 82). These sectors are the following: refrigeration and air conditioning; foam blowing; solvents cleaning; fire suppression and explosion protection; sterilants; aerosols; adhesives, coatings and inks; and tobacco expansion. These sectors comprise the principal industrial sectors that historically consumed the largest volumes of ODS.

    Section 612 of the CAA requires EPA to list as acceptable those substitutes that do not present a significantly greater risk to human health and the environment as compared with other substitutes that are currently or potentially available.

    C. How the Regulations for the SNAP Program Work

    Under the SNAP regulations, anyone who plans to market or produce a substitute to replace a class I substance or class II substance in one of the eight major industrial use sectors must provide the Agency with notice and the required health and safety information on the substitute at least 90 days before introducing it into interstate commerce for significant new use as an alternative (40 CFR 82.176(a)). While this requirement typically applies to chemical manufacturers as the entity likely to be planning to introduce the substitute into interstate commerce,35 it may also apply to importers, formulators, equipment manufacturers, and end-users 36 when they are responsible for introducing a substitute into commerce. The 90-day SNAP review process begins once EPA receives the submission and determines that the submission includes complete and adequate data (40 CFR 82.180(a)). The CAA and the SNAP regulations, 40 CFR 82.174(a), prohibit use of a substitute earlier than 90 days after notice has been provided to the agency.

    35 As defined at 40 CFR 82.104, “interstate commerce” means the distribution or transportation of any product between one state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, and another state, territory, possession or the District of Columbia, or the sale, use or manufacture of any product in more than one state, territory, possession or District of Columbia. The entry points for which a product is introduced into interstate commerce are the release of a product from the facility in which the product was manufactured, the entry into a warehouse from which the domestic manufacturer releases the product for sale or distribution, and at the site of United States Customs clearance.

    36 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “end-use” means processes or classes of specific applications within major industrial sectors where a substitute is used to replace an ODS.

    The Agency has identified four possible decision categories for substitute submissions: Acceptable; acceptable subject to use conditions; acceptable subject to narrowed use limits; and unacceptable (40 CFR 82.180(b)).37 Use conditions and narrowed use limits are both considered “use restrictions” and are explained below. Substitutes that are deemed acceptable without use conditions may be used for all applications within the relevant end-uses within the sector and without limits under SNAP on how they may be used. Substitutes that are acceptable subject to use restrictions may be used only in accordance with those restrictions. Substitutes that are found to be unacceptable may not be used after the date specified in the rulemaking adding such substitute to the list of unacceptable substitutes.38

    37 The SNAP regulations also include “pending,” referring to submissions for which EPA has not reached a determination, under this provision.

    38 As defined at 40 CFR 82.172, “use” means any use of a substitute for a Class I or Class II ozone-depleting compound, including but not limited to use in a manufacturing process or product, in consumption by the end-user, or in intermediate uses, such as formulation or packaging for other subsequent uses. This definition of use encompasses manufacturing process of products both for domestic use and for export. Substitutes manufactured within the United States exclusively for export are subject to SNAP requirements since the definition of use in the rule includes use in the manufacturing process, which occurs within the United States.

    After reviewing a substitute, the Agency may make a determination that a substitute is acceptable only if certain conditions in the way that the substitute is used are met to minimize risks to human health and the environment. EPA describes such substitutes as “acceptable subject to use conditions.” Entities that use these substitutes without meeting the associated use conditions are in violation of EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).

    For some substitutes, the Agency may permit a narrowed range of use within an end-use or sector. For example, the Agency may limit the use of a substitute to certain end-uses or specific applications within an industry sector. The Agency requires a user of a narrowed use substitute to demonstrate that no other acceptable substitutes are available for their specific application. EPA describes these substitutes as “acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.” A person using a substitute that is acceptable subject to narrowed use limits in applications and end-uses that are not consistent with the narrowed use limit is using the substitute in violation of section 612 of the CAA and EPA's SNAP regulations (40 CFR 82.174(c)).

    The section 612 mandate for EPA to prohibit the use of a substitute that may present risk to human health or the environment where a lower risk alternative is available or potentially available 39 provides EPA with the authority to change the listing status of a particular substitute if such a change is justified by new information or changed circumstance.

    39 In addition to acceptable commercially available substitutes, the SNAP program may consider potentially available substitutes. The SNAP program's definition of “potentially available ” is “any alternative for which adequate health, safety, and environmental data, as required for the SNAP notification process, exist to make a determination of acceptability, and which the agency reasonably believes to be technically feasible, even if not all testing has yet been completed and the alternative is not yet produced or sold.” (40 CFR 82.172)

    As described in this document and elsewhere, including the initial SNAP rule published in the Federal Register at 59 FR 13,044 on March 18, 1994, the SNAP program evaluates substitutes within a comparative risk framework. The SNAP program compares new substitutes both to the ozone-depleting substances being phased out under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the CAA, and to other available or potentially available alternatives for the same end-uses. The environmental and health risk factors that the SNAP program considers include ozone depletion potential, flammability, toxicity, occupational and consumer health and safety, as well as contributions to global warming and other environmental factors. Environmental and human health exposures can vary significantly depending on the particular application of a substitute—and over time, information applicable to a substitute can change. This approach does not imply fundamental tradeoffs with respect to different types of risk, either to the environment or to human health. Over the past twenty years, the menu of substitutes has become much broader and a great deal of new information has been developed on many substitutes. Because the overall goal of the SNAP program is to ensure that substitutes listed as acceptable do not pose significantly greater risk to human health and the environment than other available substitutes, the SNAP criteria should be informed by our current overall understanding of environmental and human health impacts and our experience with and current knowledge about available and potentially available substitutes. Over time, the range of substitutes reviewed by SNAP has changed, and, at the same time, scientific approaches have evolved to more accurately assess the potential environmental and human health impacts of these chemicals and alternative technologies. The Agency publishes its SNAP program decisions in the Federal Register. EPA uses notice-and-comment rulemaking to place any alternative on the list of prohibited substitutes, to list a substitute as acceptable only subject to use conditions or narrowed use limits, or to remove a substitute from either the list of prohibited or acceptable substitutes.

    In contrast, EPA publishes “notices of acceptability” or “determinations of acceptability,” to notify the public of substitutes that are deemed acceptable with no restrictions. As described in the preamble to the rule initially implementing the SNAP program (59 FR 13,044; March 18, 1994), EPA does not believe that rulemaking procedures are necessary to list alternatives that are acceptable without restrictions because such listings neither impose any sanction nor prevent anyone from using a substitute.

    Many SNAP listings include “comments” or “further information” to provide additional information on substitutes. Since this additional information is not part of the regulatory decision, these statements are not binding for use of the substitute under the SNAP program. However, regulatory requirements so listed are binding under other regulatory programs (e.g., worker protection regulations promulgated by OSHA). The “further information” classification does not necessarily include all other legal obligations pertaining to the use of the substitute. While the items listed are not legally binding under the SNAP program, EPA encourages users of substitutes to apply all statements in the “further information” column in their use of these substitutes. In many instances, the information simply refers to sound operating practices that have already been identified in existing industry and/or building codes or standards. Thus many of the statements, if adopted, would not require the affected user to make significant changes in existing operating practices.

    D. Additional Information About the SNAP Program

    For copies of the comprehensive SNAP lists of substitutes or additional information on SNAP, refer to EPA's Ozone Depletion Web site at: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap. For more information on the agency's process for administering the SNAP program or criteria for evaluation of substitutes, refer to the SNAP final rulemaking published March 18, 1994 (59 FR 13,044), codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. A complete chronology of SNAP decisions and the appropriate citations are found at: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/chron.html.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 2, 2015. Sarah Dunham, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs. Appendix A: Summary of Decisions for New Acceptable Substitutes Refrigeration and Air Conditioning End-Use Substitute Decision Further information 1 Vending machines (new equipment) R-450A (Solstice® N-13) Acceptable R-450A has a 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of approximately 600. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-1-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9).
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) has established workplace environmental exposure limits (WEELs) of 1,000 ppm and 800 ppm (8-hr time weighted average (TWA)) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234ze(E), respectively. The manufacturer recommends an acceptable exposure limit (AEL) for the workplace for R-450A of 880 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • EPA previously listed this refrigerant as acceptable for use in retrofit vending machine equipment.
  • Commercial ice machines (new and retrofit equipment) R-448A (Solstice® N-40) Acceptable R-448A has a 100-yr GWP of approximately 1,390. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-prop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1); and HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9).
  • The blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf; and 800 ppm for HFO-1234ze(E). The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-448A of 890 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Refrigerated transport (new and retrofit equipment) R-448A (Solstice® N-40) Acceptable R-448A has a 100-yr GWP of approximately 1,390. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2), HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-prop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1); and HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9).
  • The blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf; and 800 ppm for HFO-1234ze(E). The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-448A of 890 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Retail food refrigeration (new and retrofit supermarket systems and remote condensing units, and new and retrofit low-temperature  3 stand-alone equipment only) R-448A (Solstice® N-40) Acceptable R-448A has a 100-yr GWP of approximately 1,387. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-prop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1); and HFO-1234ze(E), which is also known as trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 29118-24-9).
  • The blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf; and 800 ppm for HFO-1234ze(E). The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-448A of 890 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Centrifugal chillers (new and retrofit equipment) R-513A (Opteon® XP 10) Acceptable R-513A has a 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of approximately 630. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-531A of 653 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Cold storage warehouses (new and retrofit equipment) R-513A (Opteon® XP 10) Acceptable R-513A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 630. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-531A of 653 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Commercial ice machines (new and retrofit equipment) R-513A (Opteon® XP 10) Acceptable R-513A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 630. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-531A of 653 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Household refrigerators and freezers (new and retrofit equipment) R-513A (Opteon® XP 10) Acceptable R-513A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 630. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-531A of 653 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Industrial process air conditioning (new and retrofit equipment) R-513A (Opteon® XP 10) Acceptable R-513A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 630. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-531A of 653 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Industrial process refrigeration (new and retrofit equipment) R-513A (Opteon® XP 10) Acceptable R-513A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 630. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-531A of 653 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Reciprocating, screw and scroll chillers (new and retrofit equipment) R-513A (Opteon® XP 10) Acceptable R-513A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 630. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-531A of 653 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Refrigerated transport (new and retrofit equipment) R-513A (Opteon® XP 10) Acceptable R-513A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 630. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-531A of 653 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Retail food refrigeration (new and retrofit supermarket systems and remote condensing units, and new and retrofit low-temperature  2 and medium-temperature  3 stand-alone equipment). R-513A (Opteon® XP 10) Acceptable R-513A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 630. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-531A of 653 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Vending machines (new and retrofit equipment) R-513A (Opteon® XP 10) Acceptable R-513A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 630. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-531A of 653 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Water coolers (new and retrofit equipment) R-513A (Opteon® XP 10) Acceptable R-513A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 630. This substitute is a blend of HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm and 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-134a and HFO-1234yf, respectively. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-531A of 653 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Commercial ice machines (new and retrofit equipment) R-449A (Opteon® XP 40) Acceptable R-449A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,400. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • The blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-449A of 830 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Refrigerated transport (new and retrofit equipment) R-449A (Opteon® XP 40) Acceptable R-449A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,400. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • The blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-449A of 830 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Retail food refrigeration (new and retrofit supermarket systems remote condensing units, and new and retrofit low-temperature  2 stand-alone equipment only) R-449A (Opteon® XP 40) Acceptable R-449A has a 100-year GWP of approximately 1,400. This substitute is a blend of HFC-32, which is also known as difluoromethane (CAS Reg. No. 75-10-5); HFC-125, which is also known as 1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 354-33-6); HFC-134a, which is also known as 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (CAS Reg. No. 811-97-2); and HFO-1234yf, which is also known as 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoroprop-l-ene (CAS Reg. No. 754-12-1).
  • The blend is nonflammable.
  • The AIHA has established WEELs of 1,000 ppm (8-hr TWA) for HFC-32, HFC-125, and HFC-134a; and 500 ppm for HFO-1234yf. The manufacturer recommends an AEL for the workplace for R-449A of 830 ppm (8-hr TWA).
  • Non-mechanical heat transfer (new and retrofit equipment) Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE; SineraTM) Acceptable MPHE has a 100-year GWP of approximately 2.5. MPHE is a mixture of structural and stereo isomers, which includes trans-5-methoxy-perfluoro-3-heptene and eight isomeric structures.
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The manufacturer recommends an AEL of 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for MPHE.
  • 1 Observe recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS and guidance for all listed refrigerants. 2 “Low-temperature” refers to equipment that maintains food or beverages at temperatures at or below 32 °F (0 °C). See appendix U to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G. 3 “Medium-temperature” refers to equipment that maintains food or beverages at temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C). See appendix U to 40 CFR part 82, subpart G.
    Foam Blowing End-use Substitute Decision Further information 1 Rigid polyurethane spray foam (high-pressure, two-part uses only). HFO-1336mzz(Z) ((Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluorobut-2-ene; cis-1,1,1,4,4,4,-hexafluorobut-2-ene; FEA-1100; Formacel® 1100) Acceptable HFO-1336mzz(Z) (CAS Reg. No. 692-49-9) has no ozone depletion potential (ODP) and a 100-year GWP of roughly nine.
  • This compound is nonflammable.
  • The WEEL committee of the Occupational Alliance for Risk Science recommends a WEEL for the workplace of 500 ppm on an 8-hour TWA for HFO-1336mzz(Z).
  • Solvent Cleaning Electronics cleaning, metals cleaning, precision cleaning Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE; SionTM) Acceptable MPHE has a 100-year GWP of approximately 2.5. MPHE is a mixture of structural and stereo isomers, which includes trans-5-methoxy-perfluoro-3-heptene and eight isomeric structures.
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The manufacturer recommends an AEL of 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for MPHE.
  • Aerosols Solvent Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE) Acceptable MPHE has a 100-year GWP of approximately 2.5. MPHE is a mixture of structural and stereo isomers, which includes trans-5-methoxy-perfluoro-3-heptene and eight isomeric structures.
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The manufacturer recommends an AEL of 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for MPHE.
  • Adhesives, Coatings, and Inks Adhesives, coatings Methoxytridecafluoroheptene isomers (MPHE; SuprionTM) Acceptable MPHE has a 100-year GWP of approximately 2.5. MPHE is a mixture of structural and stereo isomers, which includes trans-5-methoxy-perfluoro-3-heptene and eight isomeric structures.
  • This blend is nonflammable.
  • The manufacturer recommends an AEL of 500 ppm (8-hr TWA) for MPHE.
  • 1 Observe recommendations in the manufacturer's SDS and guidance for the listed substitute.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17469 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Humanities 45 CFR Part 1171 Change of Address AGENCY:

    National Endowment for the Humanities, National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) is amending its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations to reflect changes to its address as a result of an office move. These amendments are nonsubstantive, editorial in nature, and are intended to improve the accuracy of the regulations of NEH.

    DATES:

    Effective July 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisette Voyatzis, Deputy General Counsel, National Endowment for the Humanities, 400 7th Street SW., Room 4060, Washington, DC 20506.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NEH is making technical amendments to its FOIA regulations published at 45 CFR part 1171 to correct its address as a result of an office move. The former street address was: 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20506. The new street address is: 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506. The amendments also correct all room numbers affected by the office move. All other contact information remains the same.

    Publication of this document constitutes final action of these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). NEH has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary in this case because these amendments are nonsubstantive and editorial in nature.

    List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 1171

    Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of Information.

    Therefore, 45 CFR 1171 is amended as follows:

    PART 1171—PUBLIC ACCESS TO NEH RECORDS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1. The authority citation for part 1171 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552, 31 U.S.C. 3717, E.O. 12600.

    § 1171.5 [Amended]
    2. Section 1171.5 is amended in paragraphs (c)(1) by removing “1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 529, Washington, DC, 20506” and adding in its place “400 7th Street SW., Room 4060, Washington, DC, 20506”, and in paragraph (c)(2) by removing “1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 419, Washington, DC, 20506” and adding in its place “400 7th Street SW., Room 2200, Washington, DC 20506”.
    § 1171.10 [Amended]
    3. Section 1171.10 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing “1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 503, Washington, DC, 20506” and adding in its place “400 7th Street SW., Room 4053, Washington, DC, 20506”, and by removing “1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 419, Washington, DC, 20506” and adding in its place “400 7th Street SW., Room 2200, Washington, DC, 20506”.
    Dated: July 1, 2015. Michael McDonald, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16844 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
    80 136 Thursday, July 16, 2015 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 [Docket No. PRM-50-111; NRC-2015-0124] Power Reactor In-Core Monitoring AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities” regulations to require all nuclear power plant (NPP) licensees to use in-core monitoring devices at different elevations and radial positions throughout the reactor core. The PRM was submitted by Mr. Mark Edward Leyse (the petitioner) on March 13, 2015, docketed by the NRC on April 24, 2015, and assigned Docket No. PRM-50-111. The NRC is examining the issues raised in this PRM to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is not requesting public comment on this PRM at this time.

    DATES:

    The NRC received the PRM on March 13, 2015, and docketed it on April 24, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0124 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this PRM. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this PRM by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0124. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room 01-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Natreon Jordan, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone 301-415-7410; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. The Petitioner

    On March 13, 2015, Mr. Mark Edward Leyse, a consultant for public interest groups and the author and co-author of papers, filed PRM-50-111 with the Commission (ADAMS Accession No. ML15113B143). In PRM-50-111, Mr. Leyse requests that the NRC amend its “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities” regulations to require all NPP licensees to use in-core monitoring devices at different elevations and radial positions throughout the reactor core.

    Mr. Leyse previously submitted a similar PRM (PRM-50-105, ADAMS Accession No. ML12065A215) on February 28, 2012. Although only pertaining to pressurized water reactors, this earlier PRM requested that the NRC require all holders of operating licenses for NPPs to operate NPPs with in-core thermocouples at different elevations and radial positions throughout the reactor core to enable NPP operators to accurately measure a large range of in-core temperatures in NPP steady-state and transient conditions. The NRC docketed and noticed Mr. Leyse's earlier PRM, in part based upon the NRC's determination that he had demonstrated sufficient interest in the subject matters raised in PRM-50-105 (77 FR 30435; May 23, 2012). Mr. Leyse's March 13, 2015, PRM provides a more extensive description of himself and his interest in the subject matter of the PRM, as compared with the discussion he provided in PRM-50-105.

    II. The Petition

    The petitioner requests that the NRC amend part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” to require all NPP licensees to use in-core monitoring devices at different elevations and radial positions throughout the reactor core. The petitioner states that in the event of a severe accident, “in-core temperature-monitoring devices would enable NPP operators to accurately measure in-core temperatures, providing crucial information to help them track the progression of core damage and manage the accident.”

    The petitioner asserts that the in-core monitoring devices would “enable NPP operators to accurately measure a large range of in-core temperatures in steady-state and transient conditions.” The petitioner further states that, in the event of a severe accident, the in-core monitoring devices would give NPP operators crucial information to “help them track the progression of core damage and manage the accident.” The petitioner states also that by improving the monitoring of in-core temperatures, the in-core monitoring devices “could actually increase the electrical production of NPPs.” For additional information, see the PRM in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15113B143.

    III. Conclusion

    The NRC has determined that the PRM meets the threshold sufficiency requirements for a PRM under § 2.802, “Petition for rulemaking,” and it has been docketed as PRM-50-111.

    The NRC will examine the issues raised in PRM-50-111 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is not requesting public comment on PRM-50-111 at this time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of July, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17442 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0967; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-19] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Ponce, PR AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Ponce, PR, as the PONCE VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range Tactical Air Navigation Aid, (VORTAC) has been decommissioned, requiring airspace redesign at Mercedita Airport. This action is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2014-0967; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-19, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this proposed incorporation by reference material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Mercedita Airport, Ponce, PR.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0967; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-19) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0967; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-19.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E surface area airspace at Mercedita Airport, Ponce, PR. Airspace reconfiguration to within a 4.1-mile radius of the airport is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Ponce VORTAC and cancellation of the VOR approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas are published in Paragraph 6002 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

    Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas ASO PR E2 Ponce, PR [Amended] Mercedita Airport, PR (Lat. 18°00′30″ N., long. 66°33′4″ W.)

    Within a 4.1-mile radius of Mercedita Airport. This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 6, 2015. Gerald E. Lynch, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17272 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 573 [Docket No. FDA-2015-F-2337] Alzchem AG; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use) AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that Alzchem AG has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of guanidinoacetic acid as a substance that spares arginine and serves as a precursor of creatine in diets for broiler chickens and turkeys.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the petitioner's request for categorical exclusion from preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement by August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments to: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6729.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 2292) has been filed by Alzchem AG, Chemiepark Trostberg, Dr.-Albert-Frank-Str. 32, 83308, Trostberg, Germany. The petition proposes to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 573 Food Additives Permitted in Feed and Drinking Water of Animals (21 CFR part 573) to provide for the safe use of guanidinoacetic acid as a substance that spares arginine and serves as a precursor of creatine in diets for broiler chickens and turkeys. The petitioner has requested a categorical exclusion from preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under 21 CFR 25.32(r).

    Interested persons may submit either electronic or written comments regarding this request for categorical exclusion to the Division of Dockets Management (see DATES and ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 10, 2015. William T. Flynn, Acting Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17379 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0400] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulations; Temporary Change for Recurring Marine Event in the Fifth Coast Guard District AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the enforcement periods of special local regulations for a recurring marine event in the Fifth Coast Guard District. This regulation applies to the “Ocean City Maryland Offshore Grand Prix” power boat race, a recurring marine event held on the North Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, MD, and would be effective from October 3, 2015, to October 4, 2015. Special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the North Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, MD during the event.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, MD; telephone 410-576-2674, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2015-0400] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0400) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    The regulation listing annual marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District and their regulated dates is 33 CFR 100.501. The Table to § 100.501 identifies marine events by Captain of the Port zone, with the COTP Baltimore zone listed in section “(b)” of the Table. For a description of the geographical area of each Coast Guard Sector—Captain of the Port Zone, please see 33 CFR 3.25. The Table to § 100.501, at section (b) event Number “21” describes the enforcement dates and regulated location for this marine event. The dates of the event as published are May 2nd and 3rd (Saturday and Sunday) or May 9th and 10th (Saturday and Sunday).

    C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rulemaking establishing a special local regulation are found in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations. The Captain of the Port Baltimore is promulgating this regulation for the waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, near Ocean City, MD to protect event participants, spectators and transiting vessels.

    D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    Event planners notified the Coast Guard of date changes during 2015 for the “Ocean City Maryland Offshore Grand Prix” marine event that is listed at 33 CFR 100.501, Table to § 100.501. The event consists of approximately 40 participating offshore race boats, 22 to 50 feet in length, operating in various classes on a marked course on the waters of the North Atlantic Ocean at Ocean City, MD. This regulation will temporarily change the enforcement periods for this marine event for 2015 only. The dates for 2015 are October 3, 2015, and October 4, 2015.

    The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily suspend the regulation listed at section (b.) line No. 21 in the Table to § 100.501 and insert this temporary regulation at the Table to § 100.501 at section (b.) line No. 24 in order to reflect the correct dates for this year's event. This change is needed to accommodate the change in dates of the Ocean City Maryland Offshore Grand Prix. No other portion of the Table to § 100.501 or other provisions in § 100.501 shall be affected by this regulation. The regulation will be enforced from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on October 3, 2015 and from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on October 4, 2015. In addition to notice in the Federal Register, the maritime community will be provided extensive advance notification via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (i) The regulated area will only be in effect from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on October 3, 2015 and from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on October 4, 2015; (ii) the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation, yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary; and (iii) advance notifications will be made to the maritime community via marine information broadcasts and local notices to mariners, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally, this rulemaking does not change the permanent regulated areas that have been published in 33 CFR 100.501, Table to § 100.501. For the above reasons, the Coast Guard does not anticipate any significant economic impact.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    This proposed rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to operate or transit through or within, or anchor in, the area where the marine event is being held. This regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will be enforced only during a marine event that has been permitted by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port. This proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons provided under Regulatory Planning and Review.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the For Further Information Contact section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, canoe and sail board racing. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. In the Table to § 100.501: a. Suspend line No. (b.)21; and b. Add line No. (b.)24.

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 100.501 Special Local Regulations; Recurring Marine Event in the Fifth Coast Guard District. Table to § 100.501 [All coordinates listed in the Table to § 100.501 reference Datum NAD 1983] No. Date Event Sponsor Location *         *         *         *         *         *         * (b.) Coast Guard Sector Baltimore—COTP Zone *         *         *         *         *         *         * 24 October 3 and 4, 2015 Ocean City Maryland Offshore Grand Prix Offshore Performance Assn. Racing, LLC The waters of the North Atlantic Ocean commencing at a point on the shoreline at latitude 38°25′42″ N., longitude 075°03′06″ W.; thence east southeast to latitude 38°25′30″ N., longitude 075°02′12″ W., thence south southwest parallel to the Ocean City shoreline to latitude 38°19′12″ N., longitude 075°03′48″ W.; thence west northwest to the shoreline at latitude 38°19′30″ N., longitude 075°05′00″ W. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: June 23, 2015. Kevin C. Kiefer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17456 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-0563] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Indian River Bay; Millsboro, DE AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the waters of Indian River Bay adjacent to Millsboro, Delaware. The safety zone will restrict vessel traffic on Indian River Bay in the vicinity of a fireworks barge on August 22 and September 26, 2015, from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on each day. Should inclement weather require cancellation of the fireworks display on the above scheduled dates, the safety zone will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on August 23 and September 27, 2015. This safety zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 23, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0563 using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (215)271-4851, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking COTP Captain of the Port A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket Number USCG-2015-0563), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0563) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0563) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    This NPRM represents the first time the Coast Guard is seeking comments on the proposed safety zone at this location.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    The purpose of this safety zone is to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards associated with the fireworks display, such as accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

    D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, proposes to establish a safety zone on specified waters that will encompass all waters of Indian River Bay, within a 200-foot radius of the fireworks barge in approximate position 38-36.58 N., 075-09.00 W., adjacent to Millsboro, Delaware. The safety zone will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on August 22 and September 26, 2015, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port. Should inclement weather require cancellation of the fireworks display on the above scheduled dates, the safety zone will be enforced from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on August 23 and September 27, 2015, respectively.

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or his designated representative. The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or his representative may be contacted via VHF channel 16 or at 215-271-4807.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. Although this regulation will restrict access to the regulated area, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: the Coast Guard will make extensive notification of the Safety Zone to the maritime public via maritime advisories so mariners can alter their plans accordingly; vessels may still be permitted to transit through the safety zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port on a case-by-case basis; and the size and duration of the zone are relatively limited in scope.

    2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to anchor or transit along Indian River Bay, adjacent to Millsboro, Delaware, on August 22 and September 26, 2015, respectively from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m., unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reason: Vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with permission of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or his designated representative and the safety zone is limited in size and duration. The Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of Indian River Bay.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

    6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

    7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 165, applicable to safety zones on the navigable waterways. This zone will temporarily restrict vessel traffic from anchoring or transiting a portion of Indian River Bay near Millsboro, Delaware, in order to protect the safety of life and property on the waters while a fireworks display is conducted. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

    PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add temporary § 165.T05-0563 to read as follows:
    § 165.T05-0563 Safety Zone, Indian River Bay; Millsboro, DE.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of Indian River Bay within a 200-foot radius of a fireworks barge located approximately at position 38-36.58 N., 075-09.00 W. near Millsboro, Delaware.

    (b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in subpart C of this part apply to this safety zone created by this section.

    (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering this zone, except as authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

    (2) This section applies to all vessels wishing to transit through the safety zone except vessels that are engaged in the following operations:

    (i) Enforcing laws;

    (ii) Servicing aids to navigation; and

    (iii) Emergency response vessels.

    (3) No person or vessel may enter or remain in a safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port;

    (4) Each person and vessel in a safety zone shall obey any direction or order of the Captain of the Port; and

    (5) No person may board, or take or place any article or thing on board, any vessel in a safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port.

    (c) Definitions. In this section—

    Captain of the Port means the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay, or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (d) Enforcement agencies. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal, State, and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.

    (e) Enforcement period. This safety zone will be enforced on August 22 and September 26, 2015, from 8:45 p.m. until 10:15 p.m., unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port. Should inclement weather require cancellation of the fireworks display on the above scheduled dates, the safety zone will be enforced between 8:45 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. on August 23 and September 27, 2015, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: June 29, 2015. B.A. Cooper, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17482 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0360; FRL-9930-62-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of revising the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOC). In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the Commonwealth's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing by August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0360 by one of the following methods:

    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    B. Email: [email protected]

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0360, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0360. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, “Revision to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds,” that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register publication.

    Dated: July 7, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17384 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0113; FRL-9929-82-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia; Removal of Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve changes to the Georgia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), on January 22, 2015, to remove Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities in the State and to allow for the decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment. EPA has preliminarily determined that Georgia's January 22, 2015, SIP revision is approvable because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0113, by one of the following methods:

    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    2. Email: [email protected].

    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.

    4. Mail: “EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0113” Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0113. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sheckler's phone number is (404) 562-9222. She can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background for Atlanta's Air Quality Status Related to the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On November 6, 1991, EPA designated and classified the following counties in and around the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area as a serious ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area” or “Area”): Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale.1 See 56 FR 56694. The nonattainment designation was based on the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area's design value for the 1987-1989 three-year period. The “serious” classification triggered various statutory requirements for the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area, including the requirement pursuant to section 182(b)(3) of the CAA for the Area to require all owners and operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate a system for gasoline vapor recovery of emissions from the fueling of motor vehicles known as “Stage II.” 2 EPA redesignated the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, effective June 14, 2005.3 4 See 70 FR 34660 (June 15, 2005).

    1 On September 26, 2003 (effective January 1, 2004), the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area was reclassified to “severe” for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS because the Area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date of November 15, 1999. See 68 FR 55469.

    2 Stage II is a system designed to capture displaced vapors that emerge from inside a vehicle's fuel tank, when gasoline is dispensed into the tank. There are two basic types of Stage II systems, the balance type and the vacuum assist type.

    3 On April 30, 2004, EPA designated the following 20 counties in and around metropolitan Atlanta as a marginal ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, and Walton. See 69 FR 23858. Subsequently, EPA reclassified these counties as a moderate ozone nonattainment area on March 6, 2008, because the area failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the required attainment date of June 15, 2007. See 73 FR 12013. Subsequently, the area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and on December 2, 2013, EPA redesignated the counties to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 78 FR 72040.

    4 On May 21, 2012, EPA published a final rule designating the following 15 counties in and around metropolitan Atlanta as a marginal ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS: Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale. See 77 FR 30088.

    II. Background for Federal Stage II Requirements

    Under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA, each state was required to submit a SIP revision to implement Stage II for all ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate, serious, severe, or extreme, primarily for the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC)—a precursor to ozone formation.5 However, section 202(a)(6) of the CAA states that the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas shall not apply after the promulgation of on-board vapor recovery (ORVR) standards.6 ORVR standards were promulgated by EPA on April 6, 1994. See 59 FR 16262 and 40 CFR parts 86 (including sections 86.098-8), 88 and 600. As a result, the CAA no longer requires moderate areas to impose Stage II controls under section 182(b)(3), and such areas were able to submit SIP revisions, in compliance with section 110(l) of the CAA, to remove Stage II requirements from their SIPs. EPA's policy memoranda related to ORVR, dated March 9, 1993, and June 23, 1993, provide further guidance on removing Stage II requirements from certain areas. The policy memorandum dated March 9, 1993, states that “[w]hen onboard rules are promulgated, a State may withdraw its Stage II rules for moderate areas from the SIP (or from consideration as a SIP revisions) consistent with its obligations under sections 182(b)(3) and 202(a)(6), so long as withdrawal will not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the Act.” 7

    5 Section 183(b)(3) states that all ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above submit a SIP revision requiring owners or operators of gasoline dispensing systems to install and operate vapor recovery equipment at their facilities. Specifically, the CAA specifies that the Stage II must apply to any facility that dispenses more than 10,000 gallons of gasoline per month or, in the case of an independent small business marketer (ISBM), any facility that dispenses more than 50,000 gallons of gasoline per month. Section 324 of the CAA defines an ISBM. Additionally, the CAA specified the deadlines by which certain facilities must comply with the Stage II requirements. For facilities that are not owned or operated by an ISBM, these deadlines, calculated from the time of State adoption of the Stage II requirements, are: (1) 6 Months for facilities for which construction began after November 15, 1990, (2) 1 year for facilities that dispense greater than 100,000 gallons of gasoline per month, and (3) by November 15, 1994, for all other facilities. For ISBM's, section 324(a) of the CAA provides the following three-year phase-in period: (1) 33 Percent of the facilities owned by an ISBM by the end of the first year after the regulations take effect; (2) 66 percent of such facilities by the end of the second year; and (3) 100 percent of such facilities after the third year.

    6 ORVR is a system employed on gasoline-powered highway motor vehicles to capture gasoline vapors displaced from a vehicle fuel tank during refueling events. These systems are required under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA and implementation of these requirements began in the 1998 model year. Currently they are now used on all gasoline-powered passenger cars, light trucks and complete heavy trucks of less than 14,000 pounds GVWR. ORVR systems typically employ a liquid file neck seal to block vapor escape to the atmosphere and otherwise share many components with the vehicles' evaporative emission control system including the onboard diagnostic system sensors.

    7 Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to EPA Regional Air Directors, Impact of the Recent Onboard Decision on Stage II Requirements in Moderate Areas (March 9, 1993), available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/19930309_seitz_onboard_impact_stage2_.pdf.

    CAA section 202(a)(6) also provides discretionary authority to the EPA Administrator to, by rule, revise or waive the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement for serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas after the Administrator determines that ORVR is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. On May 16, 2012, in a rulemaking entitled “Air Quality: Widespread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver,” EPA determined that ORVR technology is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet for purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions. See 77 FR 28772. By that action, EPA waived the requirement for states to implement Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at gasoline dispensing facilities in nonattainment areas classified as serious and above for the ozone NAAQS. Effective May 16, 2012, states implementing mandatory Stage II programs under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA were allowed to submit SIP revisions to remove this program. See 40 CFR 51.126(b).8 On April 7, 2012, EPA released the guidance entitled “Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures” for states to consider in preparing their SIP revisions to remove existing Stage II programs from state implementation plans.9

    8 Under CAA section 202(a)(6), EPA found that ORVR systems are in widespread use in the motor vehicle fleet and waived the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II vapor recovery requirement for serious and higher ozone nonattainment areas on May 16, 2012 (77 FR 28772). Thus, in its implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, EPA removed the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement from the list of applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.1100(o). See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015) for additional information.

    9 This guidance document is available at: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/20120807guidance.pdf.

    III. Background for Georgia's Stage II Requirements for Atlanta

    On November 13, 1992, the State of Georgia submitted a SIP revision to address the Stage II requirements for the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area. EPA approved that SIP revision, containing Georgia's Stage II rule (Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(zz)—Gasoline Dispensing Facilities-Stage II) in a notice published on February 2, 1996. See 61 FR 3819. Georgia's Stage II rule, as currently incorporated into the SIP, requires that Stage II systems be tested and certified to meet a 95 percent emission reduction efficiency by using a system approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The rule requires sources to verify proper installation and function of Stage II equipment through use of a liquid blockage test and a leak test prior to system operation and every five years or upon major modification of a facility (i.e., 75 percent or more equipment change). The State also established an inspection program consistent with that described in EPA's Stage II guidance and has established procedures for enforcing violations of the Stage II requirements.

    IV. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    On January 22, 2015, Georgia submitted a SIP revision to EPA with a request to modify its Stage II rule, Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(zz)—Gasoline Dispensing Facilities-Stage II, in the State's implementation plan. These modifications would remove Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities in the State and allow for the decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment. EPA's primary consideration for determining the approvability of Georgia's request is whether this requested action complies with section 110(l) of the CAA.10

    10 CAA section 193 is not relevant because Georgia's Stage II rule was not included in the SIP before the 1990 CAA amendments.

    Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which the EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed SIP revision. EPA's analysis of Georgia's January 22, 2015, SIP revision pursuant to section 110(l) is provided below.

    In its January 22, 2015, SIP revision, GA EPD used EPA's guidance entitled “Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures,” to conduct a series of calculations to determine the potential impact of removing the Stage II program on air quality.11 GA EPD's analysis focused on VOC emissions because, as mentioned above, Stage II requirements affect VOC emissions and because VOCs are a precursor for ozone formation.12 The results of GA EPD's analysis is provided in the table below.

    11 EPA, Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures, EPA-457/B-12-001 (Aug. 7, 2012), available at: http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/20120807guidance.pdf. This guidance document notes that “the potential emission control losses from removing Stage II VRS are transitional and relatively small. ORVR-equipped vehicles will continue to phase in to the fleet over the coming years and will exceed 80 percent of all highway gasoline vehicles and 85 percent of all gasoline dispensed during 2015. As the number of these ORVR-equipped vehicles increase, the control attributed to Stage II VRS will decrease even further, and the potential foregone Stage II VOC emission reductions are generally expected to be no more than one percent of the VOC inventory in the area.”

    12 Several counties in and around metropolitan Atlanta are currently designated nonattainment for the 1997 Annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard. While VOC is one of the precursors for particulate matter (NAAQS) formation, studies have indicated that, in the southeast, emissions of direct PM2.5 and the precursor sulfur oxides are more significant to ambient summertime PM2.5 concentrations than emissions of nitrogen oxides and anthropogenic VOC. See, e.g., Journal of Environmental Engineering—Quantifying the sources of ozone, fine particulate matter, and regional haze in the Southeastern United States (June 24, 2009), available at: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-ofenvironmental-management. Currently, counties in and around metropolitan Atlanta are not designated nonattainment for any of the other criteria pollutants (i.e., sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead or carbon monoxide) and those pollutants are not affected by the removal of Stage II requirements.

    Table—VOC Emissions Difference Between Stage II VRS in Place and Removed Year VOC
  • emissions
  • (tons per day)
  • 2008 N/A 2012 N/A 2013 N/A 2014 +0.92 2015 +0.37 2016 −0.085

    In summary, GA EPD compared the VOC emissions with the continued implementation of the Stage II program and to the VOC emissions with only ORVR controls in place. GA EPD's analysis estimated that during the phase-out of Stage II there would be a small increase of 0.92 tpd in 2014, however, the emissions increase would be less (at 0.37 tpd) in 2015. For 2016, GA EPD calculated that there would be an emissions disbenefit of 0.085 tpd due to the incompatibility of Stage II and ORVR systems (i.e., leaving Stage II in place would result in a VOC emissions increase due to its incompatibility with ORVR).13

    13 Compatibility problems can result in an increase in emissions from the underground storage tank (UST) vent pipe and other system fugitive emissions related to the refueling of ORVR vehicles with some types of vacuum assist-type Stage II systems. This occurs during refueling an ORVR vehicle when the vacuum assist system draws fresh air into the UST rather than an air vapor mixture from the vehicle fuel tank. Vapor flow from the vehicle fuel tank is blocked by the liquid seal in the fill pipe which forms at a level deeper in the fill pipe than can be reached by the end of the nozzle spout. The fresh air drawn into the UST enhances gasoline evaporation in the UST which increases pressure in the UST. Unless it is lost as a fugitive emission, any tank pressure in excess of the rating of the pressure/vacuum valve is vented to the atmosphere over the course of a day. Due to the increased use of ORVR, a disbenefit will exist until Stage II is removed in the Atlanta Area.

    Although GA EPD anticipates a temporary increase of 0.37 tpd in VOC emissions in 2015, the State provided a technical analysis, including sensitivity modeling, to demonstrate that the Atlanta metropolitan area is NOX-limited with regard to ozone formation. If an area is NOX-limited, changes to VOC emissions have little effect on ozone formation. In EPA's guidance entitled “Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures,” EPA addresses situations where emissions increase do not interfere with attainment. EPA specifically acknowledges that there may be areas where ozone formation is limited by the availability of NOX emissions, and that a small (and ever-declining) increase in VOC emissions may have little or no effect on future ozone levels.

    EPA has reviewed GA EPD's January 22, 2015, SIP revision to remove Stage II requirements for the Area, and is proposing to determine that the associated technical analysis is consistent with EPA's guidance on removing Stage II requirements from a SIP. EPA is also making the preliminary determination that GA EPD's SIP revision is consistent with the CAA and with EPA's regulations related to removal of Stage II requirements from the SIP.

    V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's January 22, 2015, SIP revision that changes Georgia's Stage II rule, 391-3-1-.02(2)(zz), to allow for the removal of the Stage II requirement and the orderly decommissioning of Stage II equipment. EPA is proposing this approval because the Agency has made the preliminarily determination that Georgia's January 22, 2015, SIP revision related to the State's Stage II rule is consistent with the CAA and with EPA's regulations and guidance.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

    • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

    • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 18, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2015-16076 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. CDC-2015-0050] RIN 0920-AA58 Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins; Addition of Certain Influenza Virus Strains to the List of Select Agents and Toxins AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is proposing to add certain influenza virus strains to the list of HHS select agents and toxins. Specifically, we are proposing to add the influenza viruses that contain the hemagglutinin (HA) from the Goose Guangdong/1/96 lineage (the influenza viruses that contain the hemagglutinin (HA) from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage), including wild-type viruses, as a non-Tier 1 select agent. We are also proposing to add any influenza viruses that contain the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage that were made transmissible among mammals by respiratory droplets in a laboratory as a Tier 1 select agent. We have determined that these influenza viruses have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety.

    DATES:

    Comments should be received on or before September 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN), 0920-AA58 or Docket No. CDC-2015-0050 in the heading of this document by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Division of Select Agents and Toxins, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop A-46, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, ATTN: RIN 0920-AA58.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and RIN for this rulemaking. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket Access: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received or to download an electronic version of the NPRM, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Comments will be available for public inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. at 1600 Clifton Road NE., Atlanta, GA 30329. Please call ahead to 1-866-694-4867 and ask for a representative in the Division of Select Agents and Toxins to schedule your visit. Our general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet as they are received and without change.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robbin Weyant, Director, Division of Select Agents and Toxins, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop A-46, Atlanta, Georgia 30329. Telephone: (404) 718-2000.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The preamble to this notice of proposed rulemaking is organized as follows:

    I. Public Participation II. Background A. Historical Background for This Proposed Rulemaking B. Legal Authorities III. Alternatives Considered IV. Regulatory Analyses A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Paperwork Reduction Act D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Plain Writing Act of 2010 V. References I. Public Participation

    Interested persons or organizations are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written views, recommendations, and data. We are establishing a docket to provide an opportunity for interested persons to submit comments, research data, and other information that will better inform us about the effect the regulation of these two viruses will have. Comments are invited on any topic related to this rulemaking, but in particular, we welcome comment on the following questions:

    (1) Are there any vaccine candidates that include the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage that should be considered for an exclusion from the regulation?

    (2) What are the criteria that could be used for exclusion of attenuated strains which could include vaccine candidates?

    (3) What criteria or experimental conditions should be considered in defining transmissibility among mammals via respiratory droplets?

    (4) What criteria or experimental conditions should be used to define an appropriate mammalian model of influenza transmission?

    (5) What is the impact of designating as a Tier 1 select agent any influenza virus that contains the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage that was made transmissible among mammals by respiratory droplets in the laboratory?

    (6) Is the potential for influenza A H5 viruses that contain the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage to be a low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) (by design or nature) but still pose a severe threat to public health and safety significant enough to regulate as a select agent?

    II. Background A. Historical Background for This Proposed Rulemaking

    Since late 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) has reported over 600 cases of human infection with highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 viruses with a mortality rate that exceeds 50 percent in hospitalized patients (Ref 1). Current epidemiologic evidence indicates that, once transmitted into a human host, H5N1 viruses may result in more severe disease in humans than other subtypes of influenza.

    One important factor that can account for some of the increased pathogenicity is the hemagglutinin (HA) molecule. Cleavage of the HA molecule by host proteases (enzymes that can break amino acid bonds) enables influenza viruses to productively infect cells (i.e., replicate). For human influenza viruses, replication is generally restricted to the respiratory tract. However, HPAI H5N1 viruses contain a polybasic amino acid sequence in the HA molecule that is not found in human influenza viruses. This feature allows the molecule to be cleaved by a wider variety of proteases throughout the body.

    Extrapulmonary dissemination of HPAI H5N1 virus has been documented among some fatal human HPAI H5N1 virus infections. The HA molecule mediates binding of the influenza virus to host cells in the respiratory tract. Human influenza viruses preferentially bind to different receptors than avian influenza viruses (Ref 2). While human influenza virus receptors are more prevalent in the upper respiratory tract, the receptors that bind avian viruses are present in the lower respiratory tract of humans. The ability of H5N1 viruses to bind and infect cells within the lung may contribute to the severity of H5N1 induced viral pneumonia (Ref 3-5). Furthermore, a change from avian- to human-type receptor-binding specificity, as seen with the pandemic strains of 1918 (H1N1), 1957 (H2N2), and 1968 (H3N2), is thought to be a critical step in the adaptation of avian influenza viruses to humans and the ability to transmit efficiently among humans (Ref 6-8). In two independent studies (Ref 9-10), investigators have shown that laboratory modified HPAI H5N1 influenza viruses with certain mutations can be transmitted via the respiratory route between ferrets. Ferrets are widely considered to provide the best animal model for exploring these aspects of influenza virus pathogenicity as they might relate to human infection (Ref 11).

    We recognize that all HPAI H5N1 influenza virus HA clades found in humans to date descended from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 HA lineage (Ref 12). Currently, all HPAI H5 subtype viruses are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) whose oversight focuses on the threat to animal health. We conclude that (1) designating as a non-Tier 1 HHS select agent any influenza viruses that contain an HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage and (2) designating as a Tier 1 HHS select agent any influenza viruses that contain the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage that were made transmissible among mammals by respiratory droplets in a laboratory, will expand the regulatory oversight of this agent to address the potential threat of these viruses to human health. We conclude this expanded oversight is needed because while the USDA required biosafety measures for the HPAI H5 subtype viruses may also be generally beneficial to public health; their regulatory oversight is focused primarily on risks to agricultural animals rather than direct effects on human health.

    According to Federal government influenza subject matter experts, it is possible for an influenza virus that contains the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage to be classified as LPAI, and therefore not be regulated as a select agent by USDA, but still be capable of causing severe disease in humans. Designating these viruses as HHS select agents will ensure that influenza strains with the greatest potential for major direct effects on human health will be regulated with a focus on protection of human health. This approach would include LPAI viruses with the polybasic amino acid sequence removed from the HA molecule that may not pose a severe threat to avian species but could pose a severe threat to public health and safety.

    Whether the (1) influenza viruses that contain an HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage and (2) influenza viruses that contain the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage that were made transmissible among mammals by respiratory droplets in a laboratory should be regulated as a HHS select agent was considered by HHS/CDC's Intragovernmental Select Agents and Toxins Technical Advisory Committee (ISATTAC). The ISATTAC is comprised of Federal government scientists from HHS/CDC, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (HHS/ASPR) in HHS, the National Institutes of Health (HHS/NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (HHS/FDA), USDA/APHIS, the USDA/Agricultural Research Service, the USDA/Center for Veterinary Biologics, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense. The criteria used by the ISATTAC in its review were the degree of pathogenicity, communicability, ease of dissemination, route of exposure, environmental stability, ease of production, ability to genetically manipulate or alter, long-term health effects, acute morbidity, acute mortality, available treatment, status of host immunity, vulnerability of special populations, and the burden or impact on the health care system. The ISATTAC recommended that (1) the influenza viruses containing an HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage should be regulated as an HHS select agent (non-Tier 1), and (2) the influenza viruses that contain the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage that were made transmissible among mammals by respiratory droplets in a laboratory should be regulated as a Tier 1 HHS select agent. In making its recommendations, the ISATTAC considered both the historical data regarding the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage and data from current in vitro and in vivo animal studies. The virulence of viruses of this lineage, the data showing transmissibility of genetically modified H5N1 viruses among ferrets, together with the fact that the level of immunity in the general population is low, were all considered. In addition, the ISATTAC recommended limiting the Tier 1 status to only those viruses that were made transmissible among mammals by respiratory droplets. Transmission by respiratory droplets would be the most similar route to normal human-to-human transmission, as opposed to transmission by other respiratory routes such as intra nasal exposure which is not a normal route of human infection. In addition, the ISATTAC voiced concern that an influenza pandemic caused by viruses containing an HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage, could potentially overwhelm the health care system.

    On July 2, 2010, the President signed Executive Order 13546, “Optimizing the Security of Biological Select Agents and Toxins in the United States” that directed the Secretaries of HHS and USDA to designate a subset of the select agents and toxins list (Tier 1) that presents the greatest risk of deliberate misuse with the most significant potential for mass casualties or devastating effects to the economy, critical infrastructure, or public confidence. Executive Order 13546 also established the Federal Experts Security Advisory Panel (FESAP) to advise the HHS and USDA Secretaries on the designation of Tier 1 agents and toxins. In December of 2010, the FESAP provided recommendations on the composition of the HHS and USDA select agent and toxin lists, including a subset of agents and toxins recommended for Tier 1 designation.

    In accordance with Executive Order 13546, HHS/CDC published a final rule (77 FR 61084) on October 5, 2012 which designated those select agents and toxins that present the greatest risk of deliberate misuse with the most significant potential for mass casualties or devastating effects to the economy, critical infrastructure, or public confidence as “Tier 1” agents; established new security requirements for entities possessing Tier 1 agents, including the requirement to conduct pre-access and ongoing suitability assessments of personnel with access to Tier 1 agents and toxins; and made revisions to the regulations to clarify regulatory language concerning security, training, biosafety, and incident response.

    On October 17, 2012, HHS/CDC published a request for information and comment (RFI) (77 FR 63783) to provide an opportunity for interested persons to submit comments, research data, and other information to better inform us about the risk to public health and safety posed by HPAI H5N1 influenza viruses containing the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage.

    We received responses from thirty-one commenters associated with academic, private and commercial institutions and professional societies. The majority of the commenters addressed the specific questions found in the request for information.

    Twenty-seven of the thirty-one commenters asserted that influenza viruses of this lineage (1) exhibit high lethality in humans (exceeds 50% mortality rate, (Ref 1), (2) exhibit efficient aerosol transmissibility and retention of virulence in mammals following experimental adaptation to mammals in a laboratory setting, and (3) potentially may acquire efficient aerosol transmissibility in mammals and retention of virulence through natural adaptation to mammals in nature. The commenters concluded that HPAI H5N1 influenza viruses containing the HA from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage pose a severe threat to public health and safety and warrant regulation as HHS select agents. One commenter stated that listing these viruses as HHS select agents would “enable the regulatory process to evaluate, and to respond to, impacts on human health as well as impacts on agriculture.”

    Twenty commenters also stated that HPAI H5N1 viruses that contain the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage should not be designated as Tier 1 agents. The commenters believed that select agent biosafety and security requirements currently in place in regards to HPAI are adequate to protect against a release (accidental or intentional) or theft (13). However, some commenters also stated that any laboratory generated influenza viruses that contain the hemagglutinin (HA) from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage that are mammalian transmissible by the respiratory route should be regulated as a Tier 1 HHS select agent due to the combination of (1) high human virulence (presumed from that of their precursors), (2) potentially high human-to-human transmissibility, (3) nonexistence in the wild, and (4) lack of adequate control measures to contain its spread if released in the environment. The same twenty commenters felt that the mammalian-transmissible H5N1 strains are a unique or nearly unique threat to public health and therefore warrant Tier 1 status.

    HHS/CDC also asked if there were other influenza strains containing HA from Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage that would pose a severe threat to public health and safety. None of the commenters was aware of any other strains that would pose a severe threat to public health and safety.

    HHS/CDC asked if special precautions (i.e., safety and containment measures) should be considered when working with diagnostic specimens suspected of containing HPAI H5N1 influenza viruses containing the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage (i.e., any precautions versus none at all, precautions beyond those usual for clinical samples and/or laboratory microbes, etc.). The commenters varied on their recommendations. Some commenters recommended that diagnostic work with this virus should be performed in BSL-3 laboratories. Other commenters recommended that diagnostic work be carried out in BSL-2 facility with special precautions (face masks, etc.) or in an enhanced BSL-2 facility, which would include performing all open container work and aerosol-producing procedures in a Class II biological safety cabinet.

    HHS/CDC asked if special precautions (i.e., safety and containment measures) should be considered when working with strains of HPAI containing the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage that have been shown to be transmissible between mammals beyond those recommended for non-mammalian transmissible strains. The commenters varied on their recommendations. Commenters recommended that work with mammalian aerosol-transmissible H5N1 strains should be performed only using the highest physical containment and operational procedures (i.e., BSL-4 containment and procedures) and only after an open, transparent, and independent process of risk-benefit assessment and risk mitigation. Some commenters recommended that work with diagnostic specimens suspected of containing mammalian-transmissible H5N1 virus should be treated under BSL-3+ or BSL-4 conditions where possible (and consistent with the need for rapid diagnosis), and in any case should be handled only by individuals with training and experience with high-containment pathogens. Some commenters recommended that H5N1 vaccination of those working with transmissible H5N1 viruses should probably be required, but an increase in containment level is not necessary.

    HHS/CDC, with advice from the ISATTAC and from public input received in response to the RFI, published in CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) (June 28, 2013/62(RR06);1-7) Biosafety Guidelines for Working with Influenza Viruses Containing an HA from the A/goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage which can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6206a1.htm?s_cid=rr6206a1_w.

    Based on the public comments to the RFI and in consultation with the ISATTAC, we are proposing a tiered approach to the regulation of influenza viruses containing the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage. Under our proposal, influenza viruses that contain the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage, including wild-type and laboratory-derived viruses, will be regulated as a non-Tier 1 select agent. This designation recognizes the public health threat posed by the high mortality rate, lack of a readily available vaccine, and the absence of immunity in the population. The USDA regulates avian influenza virus, although the USDA regulations exclude any “low pathogenic strains of avian influenza virus . . . provided that the individual or entity can identify that the agent is within the exclusion category” (Ref 13). Accordingly, all reported human infections with influenza viruses containing the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage are considered to be HPAI by the USDA and therefore are regulated as select agents by USDA. However, influenza subject matter experts have indicated that there is a possibility that influenza viruses that contain the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage could be classified as LPAI, as a result of mutation or genetic manipulation and yet cause severe disease in humans. Under the current paradigm, these strains would not be regulated as select agents. Our regulatory strategy would address this potential gap in select agent oversight. We do not anticipate this listing to have a significant impact on the select agent stakeholder community as most entities working with this agent are already registered to work with select agents.

    We are also proposing the regulation as a Tier 1 HHS select agent influenza viruses that contain the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage that were made transmissible among mammals by respiratory droplets in a laboratory. Designating these viruses as Tier 1 recognizes the higher public health risk posed by these viruses and establishes security requirements above those currently proscribed by the USDA for HPAI. This strategy also recognizes that HHS considers these types of experiments with these viruses to be of a significant public health concern and is consistent with recent United States Government policy regarding dual use research of concern and gain-of-function research, and the framework for “Guiding US HHS Funding Decisions about Research Proposals with the Potential for Generating Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses that are Transmissible among Mammals by Respiratory Droplets” (February 2013); and therefore warranting increased oversight (Ref 14-16). Designating these agents as HHS select agents also addresses a potential gap in current select agent oversight since laboratory-generated viruses that are capable of causing human disease do not necessarily have to be HPAI.

    We recognize that this new regulatory paradigm could have implications on the development of vaccines needed during an influenza outbreak in the human population. We understand the importance of vaccine development and availability. Accordingly, we are seeking comments on how to best accommodate the need of vaccine development while protecting the public health and safety from the accidental or intentional release of these viruses. We are interested in receiving comments on criteria that could be used for the exclusion of vaccine reassortants such as those well-characterized vaccine strains or backbones (e.g., PR8) that have been demonstrated to not pose a severe threat to public health and safety.

    B. Legal Authorities

    The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Bioterrorism Response Act) requires the HHS Secretary to establish by regulation a list of biological agents and toxins that have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety. In determining whether to include an agent or toxin on the list, the HHS Secretary considers criteria such as the effect on human health of exposure to an agent or toxin; the degree of contagiousness of the agent and the methods by which the agent or toxin is transferred to humans; the availability and effectiveness of pharmacotherapies and immunizations to treat and prevent illnesses resulting from an agent or toxin; and the needs of children and other vulnerable populations. The current list of HHS select agents and toxins can be found at 42 CFR 73.3 (HHS select agents and toxins) and 42 CFR 73.4 (Overlap select agents and toxins). The list of HHS and Overlap select agents and toxins is available at: http://www.selectagents.gov/SelectAgentsandToxinsList.html.

    III. Alternatives Considered

    After we published the request for information and comment (RFI) (77 FR 63783) on October 17, 2012, we reviewed all comments received regarding the risk to public health and safety posed by HPAI H5N1 influenza viruses containing the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage. Even though all HPAI H5 subtype viruses are regulated by USDA/APHIS, whose oversight focuses on the threat to animal health, the majority of commenters believed that HPAI H5N1 influenza viruses containing the HA from the Goose/Guangdong/1/96 lineage pose a severe threat to public health and safety and warrant regulation as HHS select agent. Given the recent research that has identified specific determinants of transmission for H5N1 influenza viruses in ferrets, we conclude that listing influenza viruses that contain an HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage as an HHS select agent would allow us to focus on biosafety measures that would mitigate the risk to public health and safety.

    In researching the proposed change, we also reviewed how USDA/APHIS designated the avian influenza virus (highly pathogenic) as a non-Tier 1 agent. We conclude that (1) listing influenza viruses that contain an HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage as a non-Tier 1 HHS select agent and (2) listing any influenza viruses that contain the HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage that were made transmissible among mammals by respiratory droplets in a laboratory as a Tier 1 HHS select agent, will ensure that the regulatory oversight of this agent will expand to include the potential threat of these viruses to human health.

    III. Regulatory Analyses A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

    Under E.O. 12866 HHS must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant.” A “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866 is defined as (1) an action that is likely to result in a rule that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affects a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities (or an economically significant action); (2) creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alters the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or (4) raises novel legal or policy issues.

    Based on a literature and database search, the current possessors are academic and government institutions. As such, we conclude that the majority of the viruses that will be regulated by HHS are already regulated by USDA. If it is determined that there are unregistered possessors of the agent as a result of the comments received from this proposed rule, we will include a grace period to allow these individuals to become compliant with the regulations prior to the full implementation. As a result of the search, we conclude that the addition of influenza viruses that contain an HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage to the HHS select agent list will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affects a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities. We also believe that this change will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with an action taken or planned by another agency; materially alters the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients; or raises novel legal or policy issues. However, we would be interested in receiving any information from the public on the potential for an economic impact that might result from this proposal.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We are continuing to assess the potential economic effects of this action on small entities, but based on a literature and database search that the current possessors are academic and government institutions, we conclude that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection and/or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0920-0576 (expiration November 30, 2015).

    Please send written comments on the new information collection contained in this proposed rule or requests for a copy of the data collection to Leroy A. Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta, GA 30329 or send an email to [email protected].

    Based on a literature and database search, the current possessors are academic and government institutions and are already regulated by USDA. Since entities who possess influenza viruses that contain an HA from the A/Gs/Gd/1/96 lineage and are HPAI are already regulated by USDA/APHIS, the proposed rule will require an entity to make an amendment to its registration with the Federal Select Agent Program using relevant portions of APHIS/CDC Form 1 (Application for Registration for Possession, Use, and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins) to indicate the registration for the viruses regulated by HHS. Estimated time to amend this form is 45 minutes for one select agent. Since this agent is currently regulated by USDA/APHIS, we conclude that there is no increase in the number of respondents.

    D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rulemaking; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under E.O. 13132, Federalism. The document does not propose any regulation that would expressly preempt State, local, and Indian Tribe requirements, or that would have any substantial direct effects on the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    F. Plain Writing Act of 2010

    Under Public Law 111-274 (October 13, 2010), executive branch Departments and Agencies are required to use “clear Government communication that the public can understand and use.” E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) states that “[our regulatory system] must ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand.” HHS has attempted to use plain language in writing this proposed rule and seek comment from the public on our attempt to use plain language in this rulemaking.

    V. References 1. WHO, Cumulative number of confirmed human cases for avian influenza A(H5N1) reported to WHO, 2003-2011; http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/H5N1_cumulative_table_archives/en/index.html. 2. Fukuyama S, Kawaoka Y. The pathogenesis of influenza virus infections: the contributions of virus and host factors. Current Opinions Immunology. 2011 Aug; 23(4):481-6. Epub 2011 Aug 11. 3. Shinya K, Ebina M, Yamada S, Ono M, Kasai N, Kawaoka Y. Avian flu: influenza virus receptors in the human airway. Nature. 2006 Mar 23; 440(7083):435-6. 4. Nicholls JM, Chan MC, Chan WY, Wong HK, Cheung CY, Kwong DL, Wong MP, Chui WH, Poon LL, Tsao SW., Guan Y, Peiris JS. Tropism of avian influenza A (H5N1) in the upper and lower respiratory tract. Nature Medicine. 2007 Feb; 13(2):147-9. Epub 2007 Jan 7. 5. Van Riel D, Munster VJ, de Wit E, Rimmelzwaan GF, Fouchier RA, Osterhaus AD, Kuiken T. H5N1 Virus Attachment to Lower Respiratory Tract. Science. 2006 Apr 21; 312(5772):399. Epub 2006 Mar 23. 6. Matrosovich M, Tuzikiv A, Bovin N, Gambaryan A, Klimov A, Castrucci MR, Donatelli I, Kawaoka Y. Early alterations of the receptor-binding properties of H1, H2, and H3 avian influenza virus hemagglutinins after their introduction into mammals. J Virology. 2000 Sept; 74 (18):8502-8512. 7. Stevens J, Blixt O, Glaser L, Taubenberger J, Palese P, Paulson JC, Wilson I.A. Glycan microarray analysis of the hemagglutinins from modern and pandemic influenza viruses reveals different receptor specificities. J Molecular Biology. 2006 Feb 3; 355(5): 1143-1155. 8. Connor, RJ, Kawaoka, Y, Webster, RG, Paulson, JC. Receptor specificity in human, avian, and equine H2 and H3 influenza virus isolates. Virology. 1994 Nov 15;205(1):17-23. 9. Imai M, Watanabe T, Hatta M, Das SC, Ozawa M, Shinya K, Zhong G, Hanson A, Katsura H, Watanabe S, Li C, Kawakami E, Yamada S, Kiso M, Suzuki Y, Maher EA, Neumann G, Kawaoka Y. Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets. Nature. 2012 May 2; 486(7403):420-8. 10. Russell CA, Fonville JM, Brown AE, Burke DF, Smith DL, James SL, Herfst S, van Boheemen S, Linster M, Schrauwen EJ, Katzelnick L, Mosterín A, Kuiken T, Maher E, Neumann G, Osterhaus AD, Kawaoka Y, Fouchier RA, Smith DJ. The potential for respiratory droplet-transmissible A/H5N1 influenza virus to evolve in a mammalian host. Science. 2012 Jun 22; 336(6088):1541-7. 11. Belser JA, Szretter KJ, Katz JM, Tumpey TM. Use of animal models to understand the pandemic potential of highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses. Adv Virus Research. 2009;73:55-97. 12. Wan, XF. Lessons from Emergence of A/Goose/Guangdong/1996-Like H5N1 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Viruses and Recent Influenza Surveillance Efforts in Southern China. Zoonoses Public Health. 2012 Sep;59 Suppl 2:32-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2012.01497.x. 13. Title 9: Animals and Animal Products, Part 121—Possession, Use, And Transfer Of Select Agents And Toxins. Available at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=b9126e9fba23e3e7933354a1d2630d72&ty=HTML&h=L&n=9y1.0.1.5.58&r=PART. 14. United States Government Policy for Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern (March 29, 2012) http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/us-policy-durc-032812.pdf. 15. A Framework for Guiding U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Funding Decisions about Research Proposals with the Potential for Generating Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 Viruses that are Transmissible among Mammals by Respiratory Droplets http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/funding-hpai-h5n1.pdf. United States Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern (http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/oversight-durc.pdf). List of Subjects

    Biologics, Influenza viruses, Packaging and containers, Penalties, Select agents and toxins, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, proposes to amend 42 CFR part 73, as follows:

    PART 73 [AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 262a; sections 201-204, 221 and 231 of Title II of Public Law 107-188, 116 Stat. 637 (42 U.S.C. 262a).

    2. Add two entries to the list in paragraph (b) of § 73.3 to read as follows:
    § 73.3 HHS select agents and toxins.

    (b) * * *

    Influenza viruses that contain the hemagglutinin (HA) from the Goose Guangdong/1/96 lineage,

    Any laboratory generated Influenza viruses that contain the hemagglutinin (HA) from the A/Goose Guangdong/1/96 lineage that are mammalian transmissible by the respiratory route *

    Dated: July 8, 2015. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17435 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    80 136 Thursday, July 16, 2015 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Redding, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site: www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. daily on August 26-27, 2015.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at USDA Service Center, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Headquarters, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, California.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at USDA Service Center, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Headquarters, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, California. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lesley Yen, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at 530-275-1587 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Review proposals for Secure Rural Schools Title II funding, and

    2. Vote on proposals to recommend to the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Supervisor for approval.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by August 25, 2015, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Lesley Yen, Designated Federal Officer, 14225 Holiday Road, Redding, California 96003; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 530-275-1512.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or proceedings by contacting the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: June 26, 2015. David R. Myers, Shasta-Trinity National Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17411 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    July 22, 2015, 9:30 a.m.-1 p.m. EDT.

    PLACE:

    U.S. Chemical Safety Board, 2175 K St. NW., 4th Floor Conference Room, Washington, DC 20037.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) will convene a public meeting on July 22, 2015, starting at 9:30 a.m. at the CSB's headquarters, located at 2175 K St. NW., 4th Floor Conference Room, Washington, DC 20037. The meeting will focus on the status of several current CSB investigations. The Board will discuss the final report, recommendations, and public comments received on the report of the Caribbean Petroleum incident. The Board may then vote on the Caribbean Petroleum report. The Board will then hear a staff presentation and receive public comments on a recommendation to the BP Global Executive Board of Directors to implement an incident reporting program. In 2012, a CSB staff evaluation of BP's actions taken in response to that recommendation was calendared for discussion in a public setting. The recommendation was issued as part of the investigation report of the BP America Refinery explosion in Texas City, Texas, in March 2005. The Board will also hear staff reports on recommendations related to California's Process Safety Management rules and laboratory safety guidelines from the American Chemical Society. The Board will hear public comments on these recommendations, current investigations, and other matters of concern to the agency in person or via telephone. Please read “Additional Information” for phone participation instructions.

    Additional Information

    The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the “Contact Person for Further Information,” at least three business days prior to the meeting.

    If you are unable to attend the meeting in person, you may participate via phone. Please dial the phone number five minutes prior to the start of the conference call and provide the confirmation number. The phone number is: 1-877-691-2551 (U.S. Toll Free), or 1-630-691-2747 (U.S. Toll), with confirmation number: 40238148.

    The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating accidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.

    Public Comment

    The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to five minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.

    Contact Person for Further Information

    Hillary J. Cohen, Communications Manager, [email protected] or (202) 446-8094. Further information about this public meeting can be found on the CSB Web site at: www.csb.gov.

    Dated: July 13, 2015. Rick Engler, Board Member.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17581 Filed 7-14-15; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6350-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-601] Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Second Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 16, 2015, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) issued its final judgment vacating its decision in Peer Bearing Co.—Changshan v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (CIT 2013) (“CPZ II”), and re-instating the Department of Commerce's (the “Department”) first redetermination issued on remand (“First Remand Redetermination”) 1 with respect to the Department's final results of the 2006-2007 antidumping duty administrative review of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished from the People's Republic of China.2 Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Timken”), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Diamond Sawblades”), the Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's amended final results of review 3 and is amending the Amended Final Results of review with respect to the margin determined for Peer Bearing Company—Changshan (“CPZ”), an exporter and producer of subject merchandise.

    1 On May 23, 2011, the Department issued its Draft Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, and on July 1, 2011, it issued its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand (July 1, 2011).

    2See Peer Bearing Co.—Changshan v. United States, Court No. 09-00052, Slip Op. 15-61 (CIT 2015) (“CIT's Final Order”).

    3See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 3987 (January 22, 2009) (“Final Results”), as amended, Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review, 78 FR 58996 (September 25, 2013) (“Amended Final Results”).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 26, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brendan Quinn, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5848.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Subsequent to the publication of the Final Results, CPZ filed a complaint with the CIT challenging the methodology used to determine its margin in the Final Results.

    On January 28, 2011, the CIT issued a remand order to the Department, instructing it, among other things, to: (1) Redetermine the margin for CPZ based on redetermined U.S. prices of CPZ's subject merchandise that are calculated according to a method that complies with law; and (2) review, reconsider, and redetermine the surrogate values for alloy steel wire rod, alloy steel bar, and scrap from the production of cages.4 On July 1, 2011, the Department issued its First Remand Redetermination. On August 2, 2012, the CIT issued its decision in CPZ II, 5 setting aside the Department's First Remand Redetermination as contrary to law; and instructing it to prepare a second remand redetermination to: (1) Determine the U.S. prices for CPZ's subject merchandise according to a lawful method and in accordance with the CIT's current and prior opinion and orders in this case; and, (2) review, reconsider, and redetermine the surrogate values for alloy steel wire rod, alloy steel bar, and scrap from the production of cages in accordance with the CIT's prior opinion and order in this case. The Department issued its draft remand results on September 7, 2012, and its Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand on October 2, 2012 (“Second Remand Redetermination”). On August 30, 2013, the CIT sustained the Department's Second Remand Redetermination (“CPZ III”).6 The Department accordingly amended its Final Results effective September 9, 2013.7

    4See Peer Bearing Co.—Changshan v. United States, 752 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (CIT 2011) (“CPZ I”).

    5See CPZ II.

    6Peer Bearing Co.—Changshan v. United States, Court No. 09-00052, Slip. Op. 13-116 (CIT 2013) (“CPZ III”)

    7See Amended Final Results.

    The Timken Company (“Timken”), an intervening domestic bearing producer, and petitioner in the underlying investigation, appealed the CIT's decision to the CAFC. On September 12, 2014, the CAFC ruled that the Department's application of adverse facts available in its First Remand Redetermination was supported by substantial evidence.8 As a consequence, it vacated the CIT's decision in CPZ III and ruled that on remand, the CIT should reinstate the Department's application of adverse facts available and its calculation of CPZ's margin in its First Remand Redetermination.9 As noted above, on June 15, 2015, the CIT issued its final judgment vacating its decision in CPZ II and re-instating the Department's First Remand Redetermination.10

    8See Peer Bearing Co.—Changshan v. United States, 766 F.3d 1396, 1401 (CAFC 2014).

    9Id., at 1401.

    10See CIT's Final Order.

    Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's June 16, 2015, judgment in this case constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department's Amended Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

    Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision with respect to this case, the Department is amending the Amended Final Results with respect to CPZ's weighted-average dumping margin, effective June 26, 2015. The revised dumping margin is as follows:

    Exporter Percent
  • margin
  • Peer Bearing Company Changshan (“CPZ”) 60.95
    In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to liquidate entries of subject merchandise based on the revised assessment rates calculated by the Department. Cash Deposit Requirements

    Since the Final Results, in September 2008, CPZ was acquired by AB SKF, and the Department determined via a successor-in-interest analysis that the post-acquisition, SKF-owned entity, Changshan Peer Bearing was not the successor in interest of CPZ.11 As a consequence, CPZ no longer exists, and its cash deposit rate does not need to be updated as a result of these second amended final results.

    11See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 3086 (January 19, 2011).

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 9, 2015. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17486 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE038 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings and Hearings AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public work session.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has reinitiated consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the effects to listed Pacific salmon species from implementation of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. NMFS announces a public work session for interested stakeholders to provide input relative to managing the impacts to salmon from the groundfish fisheries. NMFS is seeking information on the amount and distribution of salmon bycatch, salmon bycatch management in the different sectors of the groundfish fishery, and whether stakeholders anticipate changes in fishing strategies or target species over the next few years that could alter the amount and distribution of salmon bycatch. NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will consider the information discussed at the work session in developing and evaluating the proposed action for the ESA consultation.

    DATES:

    The work session will be held as a Webinar on Wednesday July 29, 2015 from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time, or until business for the day has been completed. Written comments will also be accepted via email. To be considered in the work session report to the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), email comments must be received no later than noon August 7, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted via email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Persons who wish to receive further information about the work session or have questions about this notice should contact Kevin Duffy at [email protected] or Becky Renko at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General

    a. How may I participate in this webinar? To join the Webinar visit this Internet link: www.gotomeeting.com/online/webinar/join-webinar and enter the Webinar ID: 110-773-275. Your name and email address are required. To join the audio, participants can use their computer's microphone and speakers (VoIP) or use their telephone: Toll: +1 (415) 655-0059; Attendee Access Code: 227-478-994. The Audio Pin will be shown after joining the webinar.

    System Requirements for participation: For PC-based attendees the system requires Windows® 7, Vista, or XP; for Mac®-based attendees the system requires Mac OS® X 10.5 or newer; for Mobile attendees the system requires iPhone®, iPad®, AndroidTM phone or Android tablet.

    b. How can I get a copy of the webinar materials? The Webinar will be based on documents that are available online in the Council's June 2015 briefing book under agenda item D.3. The relevant briefing book materials include:

    • NMFS report 1 on to salmon bycatch in the groundfish fishery

    • NMFS report 2, the 2006 supplemental biological opinion,

    • NMFS supplemental powerpoint

    The Council's June 2015 briefing book document is available on line at www.pcouncil.org/resources/archives/briefing-books/june-2015-briefing-book/#gfJun2015.

    c. What if I cannot attend this Webinar? A video presentation will be available online at www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish/index.html. Interested persons are welcome to watch the online video presentation and submit written comments by email to [email protected] by noon August 7, 2015.

    Background

    The groundfish fishery is a year-round, multi-species fishery occurring off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Salmon are encountered as bycatch by vessels fishing for groundfish. NMFS is in the process of evaluating the groundfish fishery's interaction with salmon, including ESA-listed salmon. The purpose of the Webinar is to engage with stakeholders and management entities on information relative to managing impacts to salmon from the groundfish fisheries.

    On January 22, 2013, the NMFS West Coast Region's Sustainable Fisheries Division requested reinitiation of ESA section 7 consultation addressing the groundfish fishery's effects on ESA-listed salmon. The request was based on the evolution of the shorebased trawl fishery under the trawl rationalization framework, and new estimates of Chinook and coho salmon catch in the nearshore fixed gear fisheries (open access and limited entry fisheries) and limited entry sablefish fishery. In October 2014, catch of Chinook in the Pacific whiting fisheries in aggregate exceeded 11,000 Chinook, which is the amount of take anticipated under the existing biological opinion. That exceedance also required reinitiation of consultation. Therefore, the reinitiated consultation will address the effects of all fishing under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan on listed salmon species.

    NMFS is seeking information on whether stakeholders anticipate changes in the prosecution of the groundfish fishery in the next few years and how those changes may alter the amount and distribution of salmon bycatch and its management in the different sectors. For example, the fishery may change as a result of greater access to rebuilt species and greater flexibility under the individual fishing quota (IFQ) program. These changes may affect the amount and patterns of salmon bycatch. NMFS is also interested in stakeholder input on the types of measures that stakeholders believe could minimize salmon bycatch while allowing flexibility in the groundfish fishery. NMFS intends to consider this information when refining the description of the proposed action under consultation and evaluating the anticipated effects of the fishery on ESA-listed salmonids.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 13, 2015. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17457 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD982 Addition of Species to the Annexes of the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife in the Wider Caribbean Region AGENCY:

    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    During a meeting of the Parties to the Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW Protocol), held in Cartagena, Colombia in December 2014, ten species of flora and fauna were added to the Annexes of the SPAW Protocol. The United States voted against these amendments to the Annexes because a failure by the Parties to follow the procedures for adding species to the Annexes prevented the United States from following the domestic procedures that are a prerequisite for acceptance by the United States of such amendments to the SPAW Protocol Annexes. In particular, when granting its advice and consent to ratify the SPAW Protocol, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee expressed its intent that before the Executive Branch decides to accept amendments to the Protocol Annexes, it is to consult with the Senate and solicit public comment through notice in the Federal Register (Senate Executive Report 107-8).

    The United States has entered a reservation as to the ten newly added species in order to complete an interagency review, to solicit public comment on the addition of those species to the SPAW Protocol Annexes, and to complete consultation with the Senate. The Department of State, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service solicit comment on the addition of these ten species to the Annexes, to consider whether or not to withdraw the reservation with respect to some or all of those species.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the addition of the ten species to the Annexes of the SPAW Protocol, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0087, by the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0087.

    2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields.

    3. Enter or attach your comments.

    OR

    Mail: Submit written comments to Addition of Species to the Annexes of the SPAW Protocol, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13535, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information, contact Angela Somma, NOAA (301-427-8401; [email protected]); and Melida Tajbakhsh, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (703-358-1766; [email protected]). Persons who use a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, and 7 days a week.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The SPAW Protocol is a protocol to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention or Convention). The Convention also has a Protocol addressing land-based sources of pollution and a Protocol addressing regional cooperation on oil pollution preparedness and response. The SPAW Protocol was adopted in 1990 and entered into force in 2000. The United States ratified the SPAW Protocol in 2003. There are currently 16 State Parties to the SPAW Protocol from throughout the Wider Caribbean Region.

    Participants at the December 2014 meeting of the Parties to the SPAW Protocol included representatives from: Bahamas, Barbados, Colombia, Dominican Republic, France, Guyana, the Netherlands, Panama, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United States of America. Representatives of several non-governmental organizations also attended as observers.

    The U.S. delegation included representatives from the U.S. Department of State; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Copies of the official “Report of the Meeting” (including a complete list of the attendees) and the text of the Convention and SPAW Protocol can be obtained at http://www.cep.unep.org/meetings/2014/spaw-cop8.

    Convention and Convention Area

    The Cartagena Convention is a regional agreement for the protection and development of the marine environment of the wider Caribbean. The Convention was adopted in 1983 and entered into force in 1986. The United States ratified the Convention in 1986. The Convention area includes the marine environment of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and the adjacent areas of the Atlantic Ocean south of 30 degrees north latitude and within 200 nautical miles of the Atlantic Coasts of the signatory countries. The United States' responsibility within this Convention area includes: U.S. waters off of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and peninsular Florida, including the Atlantic coast; the waters off of a number of islands including coastal barrier islands and the Florida Keys; and the Gulf of Mexico waters under U.S. jurisdiction.

    The SPAW Protocol authorizes each Party to designate related terrestrial areas over which they have sovereignty and jurisdiction (including watersheds) to be covered by the SPAW Protocol. The United States has not designated any terrestrial areas under the SPAW Protocol and “does not intend to designate a terrestrial area under the Protocol unless requested to do so by an interested state or territory . . .” (Senate Executive Report 107-8).

    The Annexes and U.S. Obligations Under Each Annex

    The SPAW Protocol includes three Annexes listing species that the Parties believe require international cooperation to provide adequate protection. Plant species requiring the highest levels of protection are listed in Annex I, and animal species requiring the highest levels of protection are listed in Annex II. Plants and animals requiring some management, but lesser protections than those afforded to species listed in Annexes I or II, are listed in Annex III.

    The Annexes were adopted in 1991. It was envisioned that, once the SPAW Protocol entered into force, species would be added to or deleted from the initial Annexes. However, until the December 2014 meeting of the SPAW Protocol Parties, there had been no changes made to the Annexes.

    The SPAW Protocol additionally states that “a Party may, in the exercise of its sovereignty or sovereign rights, enter a reservation to the listing of a particular species in an annex by notifying the Depositary [Colombia] in writing within 90 days of the vote of the Parties.” By entering a reservation, the Party is declaring itself to not be bound by the SPAW Protocol's obligations vis-à-vis the particular species.

    Annexes I (flora) and II (fauna) are to include endangered and threatened species, subspecies, and their populations as well as rare species. The SPAW Protocol refers to rare species as those “that are rare because they are usually localized within restricted geographical areas or habitats or are thinly scattered over a more extensive range and which are potentially or actually subject to decline and possible endangerment or extinction.”

    For fauna listed in Annex II, Parties “shall ensure total protection and recovery to the species . . . by prohibiting: (i) “the taking, possession or killing (including, to the extent possible, the incidental taking, possession or killing) or commercial trade in such species, their eggs, parts or products;” and (ii) “to the extent possible, the disturbance of such species, particularly during periods of breeding, incubation, estivation or migration, as well as other periods of biological stress.”

    Annex III may include species that are endangered or threatened, or species that have endangered or threatened populations, or species that are essential to the maintenance of fragile and vulnerable communities and require some protection to ensure the survival and/or function of the community as a significant part of the ecosystem. 56 FR 12026, 12028 (March 21, 1991). The SPAW Protocol states that “Each Party shall adopt appropriate measures to ensure the protection and recovery of the species of flora and fauna listed in Annex III and may regulate the use of such species in order to ensure and maintain their populations at the highest possible levels.” Therefore, some regulated harvest may be permitted for species on Annex III. The protective provisions of this Annex are not intended to be more restrictive than the provisions included in Annexes I and II.

    The United States ratified the SPAW Protocol, including Annexes, subject to certain reservations, including the following with respect to Article 11(1): “The United States does not consider itself bound by Article 11(1) of the [SPAW] Protocol to the extent that United States law permits the limited taking of flora and fauna listed in Annexes I and II [ ] which is incidental, or [ ] for the purpose of public display, scientific research, photography for educational or commercial purposes, or rescue and rehabilitation.”

    The United States has not designated any terrestrial area under the SPAW Protocol. The United States explained at the time the SPAW Protocol was ratified that the obligations under the SPAW Protocol do not apply in the United States with respect to terrestrial species: “The United States does not plan to designate terrestrial area under the Protocol since no state or territory has identified a need or desire to designate terrestrial area. . . .” (Senate Treaty Document 103-5). In addition, “Several terrestrial species, e.g. bats (Tadarida brasiliensis and Brachyphylla cavernarum) and falcons (Falco peregrinus), are listed in the Annexes. The listing of these species, however, is not intended to describe the relevant terrestrial scope of the Protocol. As the United States has not designated any terrestrial area, the Protocol obligations will not apply with respect to such species.” Id.

    Summary of Annexes

    Annex I contains a total of 57 plant species. At the time of U.S. ratification of the SPAW Protocol, all plant species on Annex I were either: (1) Listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act; (2) endemic to Florida and protected under Florida law; (3) occur only on Federal land and are fully protected where they occur; (4) are not native to the United States, and are listed in the Appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) where primarily commercial trade would be prohibited; or (5) are not native to, nor believed to be commercially imported into the United States. 56 FR 12026, 12028 (March 21, 1991). There have been no additions to Annex I since the adoption of the SPAW Protocol.

    Annex II includes all sea turtles and all marine mammals in the region. Before the December 2014 meetings, Annex II contained one hundred nine (109) other species. Most of these animal species are either: (1) Listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act or the Marine Mammal Protection Act; (2) are not native to the United States and are listed in Appendix I of CITES; or (3) are offered complete protection by domestic legislation in all range States (whereby the Lacey Act, among other things, prohibits commercial trade in specimens taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of foreign law); or (4) are endemic to foreign countries and are not commercially imported into the United States. Six new species were added to Annex II by the SPAW Parties in December 2014. Id. Prior to the December 2014 meeting, Annex III included 40 species of plants and 30 species of animals in addition to species of corals, mangroves, and sea-grasses that occur in the region. Four new species of birds and plants were added to Annex III by the SPAW Parties in December 2015.

    Composition of the Annexes

    The plant and animal species present on each Annex can be found here: http://www.car-spaw-rac.org/?Annexes-of-the-SPAW-Protocol,83.

    Species Added to the SPAW Annexes in December 2014 Annex II Species Common name CORALS Acropora cervicornis Staghorn coral. Acropora palmata Elkhorn coral. Orbicella (Montastraea) annularis Boulderstar coral. Orbicella (Montastraea) faveolata Mountain star coral. BIRDS Catharus bicknelli Bicknell's Thrush. Pterodroma hasitata Black-capped Petrel. Annex III Species Common name BIRDS Patagioenas (Columba) leucocephala White-crowned pigeon. PLANTS Guaiacum sanctum Lignum vitae, Holywood. Ekmanianthe longifora Roble Real. Bombacopsis emarginata Seibon de Arroyo.

    Pending the results of an interagency review and this public comment period and internal and external consultations, including with the Senate, the United States has entered a reservation as to each of these newly added species.

    Circumstances of Addition of Species to SPAW Annexes and U.S. Reservation

    Article 11(4) of the SPAW Protocol details the requirements for amending the Annexes and states, in part, that a Party may submit a nomination to add a species to an Annex; that the nomination must be accompanied by supporting documentation; and that the SPAW Scientific, Technical and Advisory Committee (STAC) shall review the nomination. At the December 2014 meeting of the SPAW Parties, the Parties decided by majority vote to add these ten species to the SPAW Annexes even though no Party had formally submitted a nomination and no supporting documentation had been made available to Parties. The decision left no time for a full scientific review, a public comment period in the United States, or consultation with the Senate. The United States voted against the decision. Nevertheless, the decision was adopted and the Annexes were amended.

    The United States has entered a reservation as to these ten species pending (1) the results of interagency consideration of the added species and the obligations associated with the addition of these species to the Annexes; (2) the solicitation of public comment on the added species; and (3) consultation with the Senate.

    Species Under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service

    Four of the ten species added to the Annexes at the December 2014 Cartagena meeting fall under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). As presented earlier in this Notice, four coral species, staghorn coral, Acropora cervicornis; elkhorn coral, Acropora palmata; boulderstar coral Orbicella (Montastraea) annularis; and mountain star coral, Orbicella (Montastraea) faveolata, were added to Annex II. All four of these species are listed as threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Staghorn (A. cervicornis) and elkhorn coral (A. palmata) were listed under the ESA in 2006. Boulderstar (O. annularis) and mountain star (O. faveolata) coral were listed under the ESA in 2014.

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., (ESA) provides substantial protections for endangered and threatened species. An endangered species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA section 3(6), 16 U.S.C. 1532(6)). A threatened species is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (ESA section 3(20), 16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). The statute prohibits certain acts for endangered species of fish or wildlife, including import, export, and “take” of endangered species unless an exemption applies (ESA section 9(a)(1), 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)). “Take” is defined broadly to include harassment, harm, pursuit, hunt, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, or attempting to engage in any such conduct (ESA section 3(19), 16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Violation of these prohibitions can result in criminal as well as civil penalties (ESA section 11, 16 U.S.C. 1540).

    Congress allows the Secretary of Commerce or Interior to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species (ESA section 4(d), 16 U.S.C. 1533(d)). In such regulations, the Secretary of Commerce or Interior may, but is not obligated, to apply the prohibitions in section 9(a)(1). The ESA prohibits any activities with respect to threatened species in violation of any regulation promulgated under section 4(d). Congress' legal regime for threatened species provides NMFS the discretion to prohibit or regulate activities of concern, while avoiding the use of limited resources to regulate activities that do not cause problems for conservation of the species.

    In 2008, NMFS promulgated protective regulations for staghorn and elkhorn coral (73 FR 64264, October 29, 2008). When NMFS issued the regulations, it determined that import and export of these species was already adequately regulated by CITES. NMFS also exempted certain research and restoration activities from the take prohibitions and the need to receive a permit for such activities from NMFS under Section 10 of the ESA.

    As explained earlier in this Notice, the addition of a marine species to one of the SPAW Annexes requires the United States to implement protections under Article 11(1) f the SPAW Protocol. If the United States withdraws the reservation to the listing of the four coral species in Annex II, NMFS may need to amend these exemptions to the ESA take prohibitions. Pursuant to the reservation taken by the United States at the time of ratification of the SPAW Protocol, scientific research and restoration activities could continue. However, NMFS may have to authorize such research through individual permits rather than regulations, in order to satisfy reporting requirements. The process of issuing individual permits may slow research and restoration activities, and may result in the redirection of resources from on the ground recovery activities to permitting activities.

    In addition, NMFS would no longer be able to allow any commercial trade in these species, even though such trade may be permitted under CITES.

    In September 2014, NMFS listed boulder star and mountain star corals as threatened species under the ESA but has not yet enacted protective regulations that impose any of the prohibitions of take that apply to endangered species. NMFS has initiated a process to determine what, if any, take prohibitions should be applied, but that process will take some time and may ultimately allow activities that would be prohibited by the SPAW Protocol. On January 13, 2105, (80 FR 1616) NMFS published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, seeking the public's input into which, if any, of the take prohibitions should be applied to boulder star and mountain star corals. NMFS is carefully examining the public input it received regarding which of the take prohibitions should be applied.

    Species Under the Jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

    Six of the ten species added to the Annexes at the December 2014 Cartagena meeting fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). As explained earlier in this Notice, two bird species, Zorzal/Tordo de Bicknell (“Bicknell's thrush”), Catharus bicknelli; and Petrel de Coronilla negra (“Black-capped petrel”), Pterodroma hasitata were added to Annex II. One bird and three plant species, White-crowned pigeon, Patagioenas (Columba) leucocephala; Lignum vitae, Holywood, Guaiacum sanctum; Roble Real, Ekmanianthe longifora; and Seibon de Arroyo, Bombacopsis emarginata were added to Annex III. FWS is recommending that the reservations for the six species that traditionally fall within FWS jurisdiction be withdrawn.

    If reservations are withdrawn regarding the addition of the species under FWS jurisdiction to the SPAW Annexes, FWS believes that existing federal legislation provides sufficient legal authority to implement United States obligations under the SPAW Protocol with respect to these newly added species.

    One bird species, the Black-capped petrel, is a marine species and the obligations of the SPAW Protocol will apply in the United States with respect to this species if the reservation regarding its addition to SPAW Annex II is withdrawn. As explained earlier in this Notice, the addition of a marine species to one of the SPAW Annexes requires the United States to implement protections under Article 11(1) of the SPAW Protocol. The Black-capped petrel is included in the list of migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq. (MBTA)). The MBTA's protections include prohibitions on taking, possession, killing, and commercial trade. While the MBTA does allow the Secretary of the Interior to authorize hunting of migratory birds, hunting of Black-capped petrel is not authorized. FWS believes that the MBTA provides sufficient authority and provides the protection necessary to meet the United States obligations that would arise upon withdrawing the United States' reservation to the addition of the Black-capped petrel to SPAW Annex II.

    Five of the species under the jurisdiction of the FWS, two species of birds (Bicknell's thrush and White-crowned pigeon) and all three species of plants (Lignum vitae, Roble Real, and Seibon de Arroyo), are terrestrial species. As explained earlier in this Notice, the United States has not designated any terrestrial area under the SPAW Protocol and the obligations under the SPAW Protocol do not apply in the United States with respect to terrestrial species. Accordingly, no obligations under the SPAW Protocol would apply to these five terrestrial species if the United States' reservations are withdrawn regarding the addition of these species to the SPAW Annexes.

    Comments Solicited

    The Agencies solicit comments regarding: (1) The extent to which existing U.S. laws and regulations offer protections for these ten species; and (2) information that informs the United States' consideration of whether or not to withdraw the reservation with respect to some or all of these ten species.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    Dated: July 10, 2015. Perry F. Gayaldo, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17408 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to evaluate.

    SUMMARY:

    The NOAA Office for Coastal Management announces its intent to evaluate the performance of the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program.

    Coastal Zone Management Program evaluations are conducted pursuant to section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA) and regulations at 15 CFR part 923, subpart L. The CZMA requires continuing review of the performance of states and territories with respect to coastal program implementation. Evaluation of a Coastal Management Program requires findings concerning the extent to which a state or territory has met the national objectives, adhered to its Coastal Management Program document approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance awards funded under the CZMA.

    The evaluations will include a public meeting, consideration of written public comments and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. When the evaluation is completed, the NOAA Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings. Notice is hereby given of the date, local time, and location of the second public meeting.

    DATES:

    A Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management Program public meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 5 p.m. local time at the Environmental Agencies Building, PR-8838 Km. 6.3, El Cinco, Rio Piedras, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the most recent performance report, as well as the Office for Coastal Management evaluation notification letter to the territory, are available upon request. Written comments from interested parties are encouraged and a comment period is now open. Comments will be accepted until September 11, 2015. Please direct written comments to Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Room 11212, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Room 11212, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or [email protected]

    Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Administration Dated: July 9, 2015. Christopher C. Cartwright, Associate Assistant Administrator for Management and CFO/CAO, Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17412 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities Under OMB Review AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (“ICR”) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be submitted directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB, within 30 days of the notice's publication, by email at [email protected] Please identify the comments by OMB Control No. 3038-0009. Please provide the Commission with a copy of all submitted comments at the address listed below. Please refer to OMB Reference No. 3038-0009, found on http://reginfo.gov. Comments may also be mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, and to: Hannah Ropp, Surveillance Analyst, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Comments may be also be submitted, regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency's Web site, via its Comments Online process: http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail, above.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Portal.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures set forth in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.

    A copy of the supporting statements for the collection of information discussed above may be obtained by visiting RegInfo.gov. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to www.cftc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hannah Ropp, Surveillance Analyst, Division of Market Oversight; phone: (202) 418-5228; fax: (202) 418-5507; email: [email protected]; and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0009.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a request for an extension of a previously approved collection—Extension.

    Title: Large Trader Reports (OMB Control No. 3038-0009). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The reporting rules covered by OMB control number 3038-0009 (“the Collection”) are structured to ensure that the Commission receives adequate information to carry out its market and financial surveillance programs. The market surveillance programs analyze market information to detect and prevent market disruptions and enforce speculative position limits. The financial surveillance programs combine market information with financial data to assess the financial risks presented by large customer positions to Commission registrants and clearing organizations.

    Previously, all reporting rules contained in parts 15 through 19 and 21 of the Commission's regulations were covered by the Collection; however, a recent rulemaking action relocated several recordkeeping and reporting burdens from this collection to a new collection, OMB Control Number 3038-0103. Specifically, that rulemaking appropriated the information collection burdens associated with Commission regulations §§ 17.01, 18.04, and 18.05. Accordingly, this renewal will update the Collection's current burden estimates and officially remove the duplicative burdens from the Collection.

    The reporting rules are implemented by the Commission partly pursuant to the authority of sections 4a, 4c(b), 4g, and 4i of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”). Section 4a of the Act permits the Commission to set, approve exchange-set, and enforce speculative position limits. Section 4c(b) of the Act gives the Commission plenary authority to regulate transactions that involve commodity options. Section 4g of the Act imposes reporting and recordkeeping obligations on registered entities and registrants (including futures commission merchants, introducing brokers, floor brokers, or floor traders), and requires each registrant to file such reports as the Commission may require on proprietary and customer positions executed on any board of trade in the United States or elsewhere. Lastly, section 4i of the Act requires the filing of such reports as the Commission may require when positions made or obtained on designated contract markets or derivatives transaction execution facilities equal or exceed Commission-set levels.

    Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to be 0.26 hours per response, on average. These estimates include the time to locate the information related to the exemptions and to file necessary exemption paperwork.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Large Traders, Clearing Members, Contract Markets, and other entities affected by Commission regulations §§ 16.00 and 17.00 as well as parts 19 and 21.

    Estimated number of respondents: 453.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 18,348 hours.

    Frequency of collection: Periodically.

    There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: July 13, 2015. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17428 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Manual for Courts-Martial; Amendments to Military Rule of Evidence 803(10) AGENCY:

    Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC), Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Publication of Amendment to Military Rule of Evidence 803(10), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2012 ed.) (MCM).

    SUMMARY:

    On December 1, 2013, Federal Rule of Evidence 803(10) was amended to add a notification requirement prior to the offering of a certification proving the absence of a public record. In accordance with Military Rule of Evidence 1102(a), unless action to the contrary is taken by the President, amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence amend parallel provisions of the Military Rules of Evidence by operation of law 18 months after the effective date of such amendments. Therefore, on June 1, 2015, since no action to the contrary was taken by the President, Military Rule of Evidence 803(10) was amended by operation of law.

    DATES:

    The amendment to Military Rule of Evidence 803(10) is effective as of June 1, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Capt. Harlye S. Carlton, USMC, (703) 963-9299 or [email protected] The JSC Web site is located at: http://jsc.defense.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Annex

    Military Rule of Evidence 803(10) was amended as follows:

    Military Rule of Evidence 803(10)

    (10) Absence of a Public Record. Testimony—or a certification under Rule 902—that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement if:

    (A) The testimony or certification is admitted to prove that

    (i) the record or statement does not exist; or

    (ii) a matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept a record or statement for a matter of that kind; and

    (B) in a criminal case, a prosecutor who intends to offer a certification provides written notice of that intent at least 14 days before trial, and the defendant does not object in writing within 7 days of receiving the notice—unless the court sets a different time for the notice or the objection.

    Dated: July 13, 2015. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17429 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2015-ICCD-0093] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Guaranty Agencies Security Self-Assessment and Attestation AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507(j)), ED is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to conduct an emergency review of a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Approval by the OMB has been requested by July 20, 2015. A regular clearance process is also hereby being initiated. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED-2015-ICCD-0093 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at [email protected] Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319, Room 2E103, Washington, DC 20202.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Guaranty Agencies Security Self-assessment and Attestation.

    OMB Control Number: 1845—NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector, State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 28.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 8,848.

    Abstract: The E-Government Act (Pub. L. 107-347) passed by the 107th Congress and signed into law by the President in December 2002 recognized the importance of information security to the economic and national security interests of the United States. Title III of the E-Government Act, entitled the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) requires each federal agency to develop, document, and implement an agency-wide program to provide information security for the information and information systems that support the operations and assets of the agency, including those provided or managed by another agency, contractor, or other source. FISMA, along with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (Clinger-Cohen Act), explicitly emphasizes a risk-based policy for cost-effective security.

    FSA is initiating a formal assessment program of the Guaranty Agencies that will ensure the continued confidentiality and integrity of data entrusted to FSA by students and families. The assessment will identify security deficiencies based on the Federal standards described in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications. The comprehensive self-assessment links all questions with a NIST control. This collection of information impacts 28 independently owned Guaranty Agencies (GAs) dispersed throughout the U.S. Each agency is under signed agreement with the Department of Education to service Federal Family Education Loans that have been turned over from the lending institutions to the GAs for the purpose of student loan collections.

    Additional Information: This is a request for an emergency clearance to enable Federal Student Aid (FSA) to ensure that all data collected and managed by Guaranty Agencies (GAs) in support federal student financial aid programs is secure. FSA is initiating a formal assessment program for ensuring the GAs have security protocols in place to protect the confidentiality and integrity of data entrusted to FSA by students and families. This assessment is designed to identify security deficiencies based on the federal standards described in the National Institute of Standards and Technology publications.

    Dated: July 13, 2015. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer (OCPO), Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17415 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Revision to the List of Covered Facilities AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of revision of listing of covered facilities.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (“Department” or “DOE”) periodically publishes revisions to the list of facilities covered under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (“EEOICPA” or “Act”). This Notice amends the list of covered facilities by correcting the location information for Dow Chemical Company in California, and removing the designation of the Ashland Oil site in Tonawanda, New York; the Middlesex Municipal Landfill in Middlesex, New Jersey; the Seaway Industrial Park in Tonawanda, New York; the Shpack Landfill in Norton, Massachusetts; and the Woburn Landfill in Woburn, Massachusetts as atomic weapons employer (“AWE”) facilities.

    DATES:

    Effective July 16, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Department welcomes comments on this Notice. Comments should be addressed to: Patricia R. Worthington, Ph.D., Director, Office of Health and Safety (AU-10), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia R. Worthington, Ph.D., Director, Office of Health and Safety (AU-10), (301) 903-5926.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This Notice amends the list of covered facilities by correcting the location information for Dow Chemical Company in California, and removing the designation of the Ashland Oil site in Tonawanda, New York; the Middlesex Municipal Landfill in Middlesex, New Jersey; Seaway Industrial Park in Tonawanda, New York; the Shpack Landfill in Norton, Massachusetts; and the Woburn Landfill in Woburn, Massachusetts as AWE facilities. Previous lists or revisions were published by DOE on February 11, 2013 (78 FR 9678), February 6, 2012 (77 FR 5781); May 26, 2011 (76 FR 30695); August 3, 2010 (75 FR 45608); April 9, 2009 (74 FR 16191); June 28, 2007 (72 FR 35448); November 30, 2005 (70 FR 71815); August 23, 2004 (69 FR 51825); July 21, 2003 (68 FR 43095); December 27, 2002 (67 FR 79068); June 11, 2001 (66 FR 31218); and January 17, 2001 (66 FR 4003).

    Purpose

    EEOICPA establishes a program to provide compensation to certain employees who develop illnesses as a result of their employment with DOE and its predecessor Agencies, as well as employees of certain of its contractors, subcontractors, beryllium vendors and AWEs. Section 7384l(4) of EEOICPA defines an AWE as “an entity, other than the United States, that—(A) processed or produced, for use by the United States, material that emitted radiation and was used in the production of an atomic weapon, excluding uranium mining and milling; and (B) is designated by the Secretary of Energy as an [AWE] for purposes of the compensation program.” Section 7384l(5) defines an AWE facility as “a facility, owned by an [AWE], that is or was used to process or produce, for use by the United States, material that emitted radiation and was used in the production of an atomic weapon, excluding uranium mining or milling.”

    It has recently come to the attention of the Department that the location at which the Dow Chemical Company in California performed activities of an AWE for purposes of EEOICPA was in Pittsburg, California, not Walnut Creek, California, as previously indicated in the Federal Register.

    In addition, the Ashland Oil site in Tonawanda, New York; the Middlesex Municipal Landfill in Middlesex, New Jersey; Seaway Industrial Park in Tonawanda, New York; the Shpack Landfill in Norton, Massachusetts; and the Woburn Landfill in Woburn, Massachusetts, were designated as AWE facilities in the Department's previous lists even though they did not meet the statutory definition of AWE facilities. Records related to these five locations indicate that these facilities were not owned by an AWE and do not meet the definition of AWE facilities because, as disposal or landfill sites, they did not “process” or “produce,” for use by the United States, material that emitted radiation and was used in the production of an atomic weapon. Therefore, the designation of these five locations as AWE facilities was erroneous.

    This Notice formally makes the changes to the listing of covered facilities as indicated below:

    • The site location for Dow Chemical Company is changed from Walnut Creek, California, to Pittsburg, California.

    • The Ashland Oil site in Tonawanda, New York, in no longer designated as an AWE facility.

    • The Middlesex Municipal Landfill in Middlesex, New Jersey, is no longer designated as an AWE facility. This action has no effect on the separate status of this worksite as a DOE facility in 1984 and 1986 when environmental remediation services were conducted by Bechtel National Inc., pursuant to a contract with DOE.

    • Seaway Industrial Park in Tonawanda, New York, is no longer designated as an AWE facility.

    • The Shpack Landfill in Norton, Massachusetts, is no longer designated as an AWE facility.

    • The Woburn Landfill in Woburn, Massachusetts, is no longer designated as an AWE facility.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2015. Matthew B. Moury, Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17443 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Information Administration Agency Information Collection Extension With Changes AGENCY:

    U.S. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and Request for OMB Review and Comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has submitted an information collection request to the OMB for extension under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection requests a three-year extension of its Quarterly Electricity Imports and Exports Report, OMB Control Number 1905-0208. The proposed collection is a census of companies that (1) import or export electricity, (2) operate electric systems to cause the flow of electricity, or (3) own transmission facilities that make possible the flow of electricity across U.S. international borders. The volume of physical electricity imports and exports is reported as transaction volumes, implemented and actual interchange, and metered flow. Transaction volumes are reported with their associated transaction characteristics and payments or receipts. The collection supports the U.S. Department of Energy's regulation of cross border transmission/distribution facilities and electricity exports.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before August 17, 2015. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the DOE Desk Officer at OMB of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4718.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to the DOE Desk Officer,Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, 735 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

    And to William Booth by fax at (202) 287-1960, or by email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to William Booth at [email protected] The draft form and instructions are available at http://www.eia.gov/survey/changes/   electricity/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains:

    (1) OMB No. 1905-0208;

    (2) Information Collection Request Title: Quarterly Electricity Imports and Exports Report;

    (3) Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection;

    (4) Purpose: Form EIA-111 collects U.S. electricity import and export data. The data are used to get an accurate measure of the flow of electricity into and out of the United States. The import and export data are reported by U.S. purchasers, sellers and transmitters of electricity, including persons authorized by Order to export electric energy from the United States to foreign countries, persons authorized by Presidential Permit to construct, operate, maintain, or connect electric power transmission lines that cross the U.S. international border, and U.S. Balancing Authorities that are directly interconnected with foreign Balancing Authorities. Such entities are to report monthly data on aggregate flows of electric energy received and delivered across the border, the cost associated with the transactions, metered flows over transfer facilities and actual and implemented interchange on a quarterly reporting cycle. The data collected on this form may appear in various EIA publications;

    (4a) Proposed Changes to Information Collection: The data element “Transfer Facility's Presidential Permit numbers” is changed to “Transmission Provider/Transfer Facility(ies)” in the sections “Imports into the U.S. from Canada or Mexico,” “Exports from the U.S. to Canada or Mexico.” and “Implemented Interchange.” A new section for reporting “Metered Flow on Transfer Facilities” is added to collect monthly metered cross border flow over Presidential Permit holders and other transfer facilities;

    (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 176;

    (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 704;

    (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 1056;

    (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: EIA estimates that there are no additional costs to respondents associated with the surveys other than the costs associated with the burden hours. The information is maintained in the normal course of business. The cost of burden hours to the respondents is estimated to be $76,000 (1,056 burden hours times $71.97 per hour). Therefore, other than the cost of burden hours, EIA estimates that there are no additional costs for generating, maintaining and providing the information.

    Statutory Authority:

    Section 13(b) of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, Public Law 93-275, codified at 15 U.S.C. 772(b).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10, 2015. Nanda Srinivasan, Director, Office of Survey Development and Statistical Integration, U.S. Energy Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17444 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL15-29-003] PJM Interconnection, LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on July 9, 2015, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submitted revisions to the its Open Access Transmission Tariff and Amended and Restated Operating Agreement, pursuant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's June 9, 2015 Order.1

    1PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 151 FERC ¶ 61,208 (2015) (June 9 Order).

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 20, 2015.

    Dated: July 10, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17438 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1062-000.

    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Inactive Points to be effective 7/18/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5221.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1063-000.

    Applicants: Black Hills Shoshone Pipeline, LLC

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Black Hills Shoshone Pipeline LLC Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/17/15.

    Accession Number: 20150617-5269.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/29/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1064-000.

    Applicants: Honeoye Storage Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Honeoye Storage Corp, Pipeline Map Compliance Filing to be effective 8/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20150618-5050.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1065-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (Encana 37663-105) to be effective 6/18/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20150618-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: CP15-519.

    Applicants: TC Offshore LLC.

    Description: Abbreviated Application to Abandon Part 157 Service Rate Schedule X-64 of TC Offshore LLC under CP15-519.

    Filed Date: 6/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20150618-5131.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1066-000.

    Applicants: Bobcat Gas Storage.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Bobcat 2015 Cleanup Filing to be effective 7/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150619-5056.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1067-000.

    Applicants: Egan Hub Storage, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Egan 2015 Cleanup Filing to be effective 7/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150619-5057.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1068-000.

    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: ETNG 2015 Negotiated Rate Cleanup Filing to be effective.

    Filed Date: 6/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150619-5058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1069-000.

    Applicants: Saltville Gas Storage Company L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: SGSC 2015 Negotiated Rates Cleanup Filing to be effective 7/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150619-5059.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1070-000.

    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: NAESB Revisions to be effective 7/20/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150619-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/15

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1071-000.

    Applicants: High Point Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Off-System Capacity Filing to be effective 7/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150622-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1072-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: BG Energy Merchants' Negotiated Rate to be effective 6/23/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150622-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1073-000.

    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: § 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 2015 Revised Non-conforming Negotiated SA of Basin Electric to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150622-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-584-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.501: Refund Report RP15-584 to be effective N/A0.

    Filed Date: 6/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150622-5183.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-905-001.

    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance to RP15-905-000. to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20150618-5034.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-905-001.

    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance to RP15-905-000. to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/18/15.

    Accession Number: 20150618-5034.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-276-001.

    Applicants: MoGas Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: MoGas Pipeline LLC Compliance Filing to be effective 7/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/19/15.

    Accession Number: 20150619-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-23-007.

    Applicants: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: RP15-23 Rate Case Settlement Agreement to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 6/22/15.

    Accession Number: 20150622-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-956-002.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance Filing in RP15-596-000., et al. to be effective 5/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/23/15.

    Accession Number: 20150623-5029.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/15.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 23, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17440 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM15-20-000] Five-Year Review of the Oil Pipeline Index; Notice Regarding Conference

    On June 30, 2015, the Commission issued a notice of inquiry (NOI) in the above-captioned proceeding initiating its five-year review of the oil pipeline index. The Commission stated that it planned to hold a conference on July 30, 2015, regarding the issues raised by the NOI.1

    1Five-Year Review of the Oil Pipeline Index, 151 FERC ¶ 61,278 (2015).

    The conference will be held on July 30, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (EST), at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The conference will be led by Commission Staff and may be attended by one or more Commissioners.

    The purpose of the conference is to gain an understanding of the positions of the parties in advance of the filed comments in this proceeding. At the conference, interested persons will be permitted to give brief presentations regarding the index level proposed in the notice of inquiry and any alternative methodologies for calculating the index level. Each presenter will be allowed up to 15 minutes as time permits based on the number of presentations.

    The technical conference will not be transcribed. However, there will be a free webcast of the conference. The webcast will allow persons to listen to the technical conference, but not participate. Anyone with Internet access who wants to listen to the conference can do so my navigating to the Calendar of Events at www.ferc.gov and locating the technical conference in the Calendar. The Calendar will contain a link to the webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the webcast and offers the option of listening to the meeting via a phone-bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or call 703-993-3100.2

    2 The webcast will continue to be available on the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov for three months after the conference.

    Those interested in providing presentations are asked to submit a brief request to speak in this docket on or before July 15, 2015, by completing the form available at: (https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/07-30-15-RM-15-20-000-speaker-form.asp). Once the speaking requests have been submitted, a further notice will be issued with the speaking schedule for the conference.

    This conference is open to the public. Pre-registration for attending is not required, but is recommended. Registrations can be made at: (https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/07-30-15-form.asp).

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 208 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please send an email to [email protected] or call toll free 1-866-208-3372 (voice) or 202-502-8659 (TTY); or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    For further information about these conferences, please contact: Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs, (202) 502-8004, [email protected]

    Dated: July 10, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17423 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-523-000] American Midstream (Midla), LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on June 29, 2015, American Midstream (Midla), LLC (Midla) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authority to construct its Natchez Pipeline, consisting of approximately 51.97 miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline and approximately 0.5 miles of 4-inch-diameter lateral pipeline from interconnections with Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. and Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC in the Winnsboro, Louisiana area, through Franklin, Catahoula, and Concordia Parishes, Louisiana, under the Mississippi River, and into Adams County, Mississippi to the Natchez, Mississippi area. The Natchez Pipeline will provide up to 48,300 Dekatherms per day at an estimated cost of $66.2 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

    This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Dennis J. Kelly, Senior Counsel for Midla, 1400 16th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202, by phone at (720) 457-6076 or by email at [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 31, 2015

    Dated: July 10, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17441 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC15-153-000.

    Applicants: PowerOne Corporation, ResCom Energy LLC.

    Description: Supplement to June 2, 2015 Application under Section 203 of ResCom Energy LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 7/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150709-5300.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-165-000.

    Applicants: Samchully Power & Utilities 1 LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Samchully Power & Utilities 1 LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150710-5103.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: EC15-166-000.

    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Beech Ridge Energy II LLC, Beech Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Bishop Hill Energy LLC, Bishop Hill Energy III LLC, Bishop Hill Interconnection LLC, Buckeye Wind Energy LLC, California Ridge Wind Energy LLC, Forward Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy II LLC, Grand Ridge Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC, Grand Ridge Energy V LLC, Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Gratiot County Wind LLC, Gratiot County Wind II LLC, Invenergy TN LLC, Judith Gap Energy LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy II LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy III LLC, Sheldon Energy LLC, Spring Canyon Energy LLC, Stony Creek Energy LLC, Vantage Wind Energy LLC, Willow Creek Energy LLC, Wolverine Creek Energy LLC, Wolverine Creek Goshen Interconnection, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of Beech Ridge Energy LLC, et. al.

    Filed Date: 7/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150710-5105.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1371-001; ER13-1371-002.

    Applicants: GP Big Island, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to the June 23, 2015 and July 1, 2015 GP Big Island, LLC tariff filings.

    Filed Date: 7/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150710-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-528-002.

    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: OATT Order No. 676-H Revised Second Compliance Filing to be effective 5/15/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150710-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2146-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, Pennsylvania Electric Company, Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company, West Penn Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, Monongahela Power Company, Metropolitan Edison Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: American Transmission Systems Inc., et al. Filing of New Service Agreements to be effective 9/7/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150709-5196.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2148-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4189 (Queue Z2-012) to be effective 6/10/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150710-5041.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2149-000.

    Applicants: Century Marketer LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: MBRA Tariff to be effective 9/24/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150710-5084.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2150-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: PPL Electric submits Coordination Agreement No. 1015 with Borough of Catawissa to be effective 1/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 7/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150710-5085.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2151-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., PPL Electric Utilities Corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: PPL submits Coordination Agreement No. 1027 with Borough of Watsontown to be effective 1/1/2014.

    Filed Date: 7/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150710-5086.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2152-000.

    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Niagara Mohawk filing of an amended CRA between NMPC and RG&E to be effective 5/29/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150710-5088.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2153-000.

    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Ohio Power Supply Agreement Cancellation to be effective 6/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 7/10/15.

    Accession Number: 20150710-5123.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES15-37-000.

    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to June 22, 2015 Application under Section 204 of Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150709-5302.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/20/15.

    Docket Numbers: ES15-38-000.

    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.

    Description: Application of MDU Resources Group, Inc. for authorization is issue short-term securities in the form of promissory notes and/or commercial paper.

    Filed Date: 7/9/15.

    Accession Number: 20150709-5303.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 10, 2015. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17422 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14677-000] Clark Canyon Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On April 21, 2015, Clark Canyon Hydro, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Clark Canyon Dam Hydroelectric Project (Clark Canyon Dam Project or project) to be located at the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Clark Canyon Dam on the Beaverhead River, near Dillon, Beaverhead County, Montana. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would utilize the existing Clark Canyon Dam and would consist of the following: (1) A new 360-foot-long, 8-foot-diameter steel penstock within the existing concrete conduit, ending in a trifurcation; (2) two new 35-foot-long, 8-foot-diameter penstocks extending from the trifurcation to the powerhouse, transitioning to 6-foot-diameter before entering the powerhouse; (3) a new 10-foot-long, 8-foot-diameter steel penstock leaving the trifurcation and ending in a 7-foot-diameter cone value and reducer to control discharge into the existing outlet stilling basin; (4) a new 62.5-foot-long, 41-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse containing two vertical Francis-type turbine/generator units rated for 2.35 megawatts each; (5) two new 17-foot-long, 15-foot-diameter tailrace channels connecting the pump/turbine draft tubes with the existing spillway stilling basin; (6) a new 1,100-foot-long, 4.16-kilovolt (kV) buried transmission line from the power house to the substation; (7) a new substation containing step-up transformers and switchgear; (8) a new 7.9-mile-long, 69-kV transmission line extending from the project substation to the Peterson Flat substation (the point of interconnection); and (9) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Clark Canyon Dam Project would be 15.4 gigawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Mr. David Boyter, NW Engineering Services, P.C., 1680 Woodruff Park, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401; phone: (208) 932-2720.

    FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott; phone: (202) 502-6480.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14677-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14677) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: July 10, 2015. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17439 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9930-09-OEI] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of West Virginia AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of West Virginia's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA's approval is effective August 17, 2015 for the State of West Virginia's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

    On August 19, 2010, the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (WV DHHR) submitted an amended application titled “Drinking Water Program Electronic Data Receiving System” for revision of its EPA-authorized Part 142 program under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed WV DHHR's request to revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve West Virginia's request to revise its Part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in the Federal Register.

    WV DHHR was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.

    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State of West Virginia's request to revise its authorized public water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should include the following information:

    (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a hearing;

    (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to consider when determining whether to grant the request;

    (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.

    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order either affirming today's determination or rescinding such determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and granted, EPA's approval of the State of West Virginia's request to revise its part 142—National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days after today's notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4).

    Matthew Leopard, Director, Office of Information Collection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17452 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9926-09-OEI] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Florida AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Florida's request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA's approval is effective July 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements. Once an authorized program has EPA's approval to accept electronic documents under certain programs, CROMERR § 3.1000(a)(4) requires that the program keep EPA apprised of any changes to laws, policies, or the electronic document receiving systems that have the potential to affect the program's compliance with CROMERR § 3.2000.

    On February 22, 2011, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) submitted an amended application titled “Electronic Reporting System” for revisions/modifications of its EPA-authorized programs under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed FDEP's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Florida's request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 71, and 122, is being published in the Federal Register:

    Part 71—Federal Operating Permit Programs;

    Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; and

    Part 239—Requirements for State Permit Program Determination of Adequacy.

    FDEP was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

    Matthew Leopard, Director, Office of Information Collection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17449 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9926-11-OEI] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Vermont AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Vermont's request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA's approval is effective July 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements. Once an authorized program has EPA's approval to accept electronic documents under certain programs, CROMERR § 3.1000(a)(4) requires that the program keep EPA apprised of any changes to laws, policies, or the electronic document receiving systems that have the potential to affect the program's compliance with CROMERR § 3.2000.

    On December 5, 2011, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) submitted an amended application titled “Online Report Submittal System” for revisions/modifications of its EPA-authorized programs under title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed VT DEC's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Vermont's request to revise/modify its following EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR parts 122, 280, and 281, is being published in the Federal Register: Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; and Part 282—Approved Underground Storage Tank Programs.

    VT DEC was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

    Matthew Leopard, Director, Office of Information Collection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17451 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9926-59-OEI] Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision Approval, State of Mississippi AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Mississippi's request to revise/modify its EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System EPA-authorized program to allow electronic reporting.

    DATES:

    EPA's approval is effective July 16, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop 2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-1175, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR. CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving, electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic reporting. Additionally, § 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.

    On January 14, 2010, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted an application titled “Hazardous Waste Biennial Reporting System” and “Regulatory Services Portal” for revision/modification of its EPA-authorized Part 123 program under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed MDEQ's request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of authorized program revision/modification set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve Mississippi's request to revise/modify its Part 123—EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 122 is being published in the Federal Register.

    MDEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application with respect to the authorized program listed above.

    Matthew Leopard, Director, Office of Information Collection.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17450 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Update to Notice of Financial Institutions for Which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Has Been Appointed Either Receiver, Liquidator, or Manager AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Update Listing of Financial Institutions in Liquidation.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing. This list (as updated from time to time in the Federal Register) may be relied upon as “of record” notice that the Corporation has been appointed receiver for purposes of the statement of policy published in the July 2, 1992 issue of the Federal Register (57 FR 29491). For further information concerning the identification of any institutions which have been placed in liquidation, please visit the Corporation Web site at www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html or contact the Manager of Receivership Oversight in the appropriate service center.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Dated: July 13, 2015. Pamela Johnson, Regulatory Editing Specialist. Institutions in Liquidation [In alphabetical order] FDIC Ref. No. Bank name City State Date closed 10515 Premier Bank Denver CO 7/10/2015
    [FR Doc. 2015-17434 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 31, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. The Armstrong 2011 Family Trust, Nelba Armstrong, trustee, Emory; Texas; J. Russell Armstrong 2011 GST Trust, John Russell Armstrong, Jr., trustee, both of Commerce, Texas; J. Russell Armstong Trust, John Russell Armstrong, Jr., and Lannette Armstrong Beaver, co-trustees, all of Commerce, Texas; Lannette A. Beaver 2011 GST Trust, Nancy Lannette Armstrong Beaver, trustee, both of Emory, Texas; N. Lannette Armstrong Beaver Trust, John Russell Armstrong, Jr., and Lannette Armstrong Beaver, co-trustees, all of Emory, Texas; John Russell Armstrong, Jr. and Lee Armstrong, both of Commerce, Texas; Matthew Russell Armstrong, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Lannette Armstrong Beaver, Emory, Texas; Rachel Lee Armstrong, Los Angeles, California; Steve Beaver, Emory, Texas; Ryan Embry Beaver, Nashville, Tennessee; Cody Russell Beaver, Emory, Texas; Brin Ashley Parnell, Waco, Texas; collectively acting as a group in concert, to retain voting shares of Emory Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of The First National Bank of Emory, both in Emory, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 13, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17419 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 10, 2015.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:

    1. Home BancShares, Inc., Conway, Arkansas; to merge with Florida Business BancGroup, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Bay Cities Bank, both in Tampa, Florida.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. JSA Family Limited Partnership, Jacksonville, Texas and Jane Austin Chapman Limited Partnership, L.P., Frankston, Texas; each to acquire up to 16 and 15 percent respectively, of the voting shares of Austin Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Austin Bank, Texas National Association, both in Jacksonville, Texas.

    2. Kimble County Bancshares, Inc., Junction, Texas; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of First State Bank, Junction, Texas.

    3. The 2013 Monte Hulse Family Irrevocable Trust I, Waco, Texas; to acquire up to 30 percent of the voting shares of FCT Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First National Bank of Central Texas, both in Waco, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 13, 2015. Michael J. Lewandowski, Associate Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17420 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Government in the Sunshine Meeting Notice Agency Holding the Meeting:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    Time and Date:

    1 p.m. on Monday, July 20, 2015.

    Place:

    Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th Street entrance between Constitution Avenue and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    Status:

    Open.

    On the day of the meeting, you will be able to view the meeting via webcast from a link available on the Board's public Web site. You do not need to register to view the webcast of the meeting. A link to the meeting documentation will also be available approximately 20 minutes before the start of the meeting. Both links may be accessed from the Board's public Web site at www.federalreserve.gov.

    If you plan to attend the open meeting in person, we ask that you notify us in advance and provide your name, date of birth, and social security number (SSN) or passport number. You may provide this information by calling 202-452-2474 or you may register online. You may pre-register until close of business on July 17, 2015. You also will be asked to provide identifying information, including a photo ID, before being admitted to the Board meeting. The Public Affairs Office must approve the use of cameras; please call 202-452-2955 for further information. If you need an accommodation for a disability, please contact Penelope Beattie on 202-452-3982. For the hearing impaired only, please use the Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) on 202-263-4869.

    Privacy Act Notice: The information you provide will be used to assist us in prescreening you to ensure the security of the Board's premises and personnel. In order to do this, we may disclose your information consistent with the routine uses listed in the Privacy Act Notice for BGFRS-32, including to appropriate federal, state, local, or foreign agencies where disclosure is reasonably necessary to determine whether you pose a security risk or where the security or confidentiality of your information has been compromised. We are authorized to collect your information by 12 U.S.C. 243 and 248, and Executive Order 9397. In accordance with Executive Order 9397, we collect your SSN so that we can keep accurate records, because other people may have the same name and birth date. In addition, we use your SSN when we make requests for information about you from law enforcement and other regulatory agency databases. Furnishing the information requested is voluntary; however, your failure to provide any of the information requested may result in disapproval of your request for access to the Board's premises. You may be subject to a fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for any false statements you make in your request to enter the Board's premises.

    Matters To Be Considered Discussion Agenda

    1. Final Rule to Establish Risk-Based Capital Surcharges for Systemically Important Bank Holding Companies.

    2. Final Order Applying Enhanced Prudential Standards to General Electric Capital Corporation under Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

    Notes: 1. The staff memo to the Board will be made available to the public on the day of the meeting in paper and the background material will be made available on a compact disc (CD). If you require a paper copy of the entire document, please call Penelope Beattie on 202-452-3982. The documentation will not be available until about 20 minutes before the start of the meeting.

    2. This meeting will be recorded for the benefit of those unable to attend. The webcast recording and a transcript of the meeting will be available after the meeting on the Board's public Web site http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/boardmeetings/ or if you prefer, a CD recording of the meeting will be available for listening in the Board's Freedom of Information Office, and copies can be ordered for $4 per disc by calling 202-452-3684 or by writing to: Freedom of Information Office, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    For more information please contact: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-2955.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    You may access the Board's public Web site at www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement. (The Web site also includes procedural and other information about the open meeting.)

    Dated: July 13, 2015. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17505 Filed 7-14-15; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket Number USCG-2015-0508] Waterway Suitability Assessment for Liquefied Natural Gas Facility; Nikiski, Alaska AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard, at Sector Anchorage, announces receipt of a Letter of Intent (LOI) and Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) for a proposed project to construct a Marine Terminal as part of a Liquefaction Facility in Nikiski, Alaska, to export liquefied natural gas (LNG). The LOI and WSA were submitted by ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC on behalf of the Alaska LNG Project, the participants in which are Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, BP Alaska LNG LLC, ConocoPhillips Alaska LNG Company, ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC, and TransCanada Alaska Midstream LP. The Coast Guard is notifying the public of this action to solicit public comments on the proposed construction of the Marine Terminal.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before October 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0508 using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility, Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these three methods.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice of availability, call or email LT Eugene Chung, Sector Anchorage Prevention, Coast Guard; telephone 907-428-4189, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    The Coast Guard encourages public participation. We request that you submit comments and related materials in response to this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, USCG-2015-0508, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and related material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission. To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0508) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Then click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this notice.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0508) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    The Coast Guard does not plan to hold a public meeting; you may submit a request for one using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine one would aid this evaluation, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    Discussion

    Under 33 CFR 127.007, an owner or operator planning new construction to expand or modify marine terminal operations in an existing facility handling LNG or Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG), where the construction, expansion, or modification would result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LNG or LHG marine traffic on the waterway associated with a proposed facility or modification to an existing facility, must submit an LOI to the Captain of the Port of the zone in which the facility is or will be located. Under 33 CFR 127.009, after receiving an LOI, the Captain of the Port issues a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG or LHG marine traffic to the appropriate jurisdictional authorities. The LOR is based on a series of factors outlined in 33 CFR 127.009 that relate to the physical nature of the affected waterway and issues of safety and security associated with LNG or LHG marine traffic on the affected waterway.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments on the proposed construction of a Marine Terminal as part of a Liquefaction Facility at Nikiski, Alaska, for production of liquefied natural gas for export, as submitted by ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC on behalf of the Alaska LNG Project, the participants in which are Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, BP Alaska LNG LLC, ConocoPhillips Alaska LNG Company, ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC, and TransCanada Alaska Midstream LP. Input from the public may be useful to the COTP with respect to developing the LOR. The Coast Guard requests comments to help assess the suitability of the associated waterway for increased LNG marine traffic as it relates to navigation, safety, and security.

    On January 24, 2011, the Coast Guard issued Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 01-2011, Guidance Related to Waterfront Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities. NVIC 01-2011 provides guidance for owners and operators seeking approval to construct and operate LNG facilities. The Coast Guard will refer to NVIC 01-2011 for process information and guidance in evaluating the project included in the LOI and WSA submitted by ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC. A copy of NVIC 01-2011 is available for viewing in the public docket for this notice and on the Coast Guard's Web site at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/2010s.asp.

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223-1225, Department of Homeland Security Delegation Number 0170.1(70), 33 CFR 127.007 and 127.009.

    Dated: June 25, 2015. Paul Mehler III, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Western Alaska.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17461 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5728-N-02] Federal Housing Administration (FHA): Small Building Risk Sharing Initiative Final Notice AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Final Notice announces HUD's implementation of an Initiative under the Risk Sharing Program (the “Initiative”), authorized by Section 542(b) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, to facilitate the financing of small multifamily properties. Through this Final Notice, HUD invites applications for the Initiative described in this Notice from high capacity Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFIs), other non-profit lenders, and public and quasi-public agencies (collectively referred to as Mission Based Lenders), and private, for-profit lenders approved as FHA Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) lenders (referred to as Private Lenders), to participate in HUD's Risk Sharing Program as Qualified Participating Entities (QPEs).

    DATES:

    Effective Date of Initiative: July 16, 2015.

    Application Date for Mission Based Lenders: Applications will be completed in a two-stage process: Pre-Qualification and Final Application. Pre-Qualification Applications from Mission Based Lenders will be accepted starting on the effective date of this Notice. If the Pre-Qualification Application is approved by HUD the applicant will have 90 days from receipt of HUD's approval to complete its FHA Lender application online and deliver a Final Application to HUD.

    Application Date for Private Lenders: Applications will be completed in a two-stage process: Pre-Qualification and Final Application. Pre-Qualification Applications from Private Lenders will be accepted starting six (6) months from the effective date of this Notice. If the Pre-Qualification Application is approved by HUD the applicant will have 90 days from receipt of HUD's approval to deliver a complete Final Application to HUD. (Note Private Lenders must be FHA MAP Lenders in good standing in order to apply; therefore separate FHA Lender applications are not required.)

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties are invited to submit applications including information outlined below, within the time frames described above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diana Talios, Office of Multifamily Housing Programs, Office of Production, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 6148, Washington, DC 20410; email address [email protected] and telephone number (202) 402-7125 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction A. Purpose

    Under the Initiative, applicants qualified as QPEs will rely on a 50 percent risk sharing arrangement with HUD to underwrite, originate, and service loans that (1) are secured with properties of 5 or more rental dwelling units, and (2) do not exceed the amount of $3,000,000, or, in the case of projects located in “High Cost Areas” annually designated by HUD, (most recently in Mortgagee Letter 2014-14 1 ), the amount of $5,000,000.

    1 See http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=14-14ml.pdf.

    B. Proposed Statutory Changes

    HUD intends to pursue statutory changes to Section 542(b) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 that would, through loans originated by lenders that have demonstrated experience in affordable housing lending, remove affordability restrictions currently required under Section 542(b). The change is intended to reduce the burden on owners who access this capital in order to provide affordable housing in their communities. The language would also authorize Ginnie Mae to securitize loans on small buildings made under Section 542(b), which could significantly enhance the impact and utility of the Initiative. If granted this authority by the Congress, HUD would invite applicants that participate under the authority of this Final Notice to modify their agreements to take advantage of such new authority. Until such statutory changes are made, lenders participating in this Initiative may have access to low-cost long-term financing through the Federal Financing Bank (FFB). The FFB Risk Sharing Initiative announced June 26, 2014, now provides capital for multifamily loans insured under Section 542(c) of the Risk Sharing Program. HUD and the Treasury Department are currently formalizing an agreement to expand this capital source to lenders participating in the Small Buildings Initiative. Additional application criteria and program standards may be required by HUD and the Treasury Department in order to qualify for FFB financing under this Initiative.

    C. Initiative Description

    Lenders approved to participate in the Initiative will be authorized to originate, underwrite, and service loans for HUD multifamily mortgage insurance for project acquisition, refinancing, rehabilitation (up to and including substantial rehabilitation) and/or equity take outs, but excluding new construction. The amount of the equity take-out, or “cash out”, cannot exceed the scope of work that is paid for by the Risk Sharing loan proceeds. Further, the rehabilitation must address all of the capital needs in the Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) and satisfy the reserve requirements for the life of the loan. The cornerstone of the Risk Sharing Program is that the lender shares the insurance risk with FHA. Since lenders will cover 50 percent of the risk of loss under this Initiative, FHA offers participants significantly more flexibility with respect to underwriting terms, and ongoing compliance than is found in Risk Sharing Program elements with higher risk allocations to FHA, and in other FHA Multifamily insurance programs.

    Upon presentation of appropriate project information and certifications, HUD will endorse such loans for full mortgage insurance. QPEs will be responsible for the full range of loan management, servicing, and property disposition activities.

    Through a Risk Sharing Agreement (RSA) QPEs will contract to assume 50 percent of the risk on each loan they underwrite. In turn, upon a default, HUD will commit to pay an initial claim amount based on 100 percent of the unpaid principal balance of an insured mortgage note plus interest at the mortgage note rate from the date of default to the date of an initial claim payment upon default of the loan and filing of a claim. The loss, if any, will be determined at a later date and HUD and the QPE will share such loss in accordance with the fifty-fifty share of risk assumed by each under the RSA.

    D. Contents

    This document contains information on applicant eligibility, application requirements, application process, the timeframe for decisions on applications, and other program features and requirements.

    II. Background

    HUD's 2012 Rental Housing Finance Survey (RHFS) data indicates there are approximately 495,574 small (5-49 units) multifamily rental properties in the United States, constituting more than a quarter of rental units across the nation (2012 Rental Housing Finance Survey). Small multifamily properties tend to be older, located in low-income neighborhoods, and to have lower median rents and higher shares of affordable units than larger multifamily rental properties. The 2012 RHFS also suggests that 87 percent of the owners of this stock are individuals, households and estates, compared to 8 percent of larger properties with 50 or more units. Similarly, according to the RHFS, just 52 percent of small multifamily properties are mortgaged compared to 87 percent of the larger multifamily properties.

    Worst case housing needs are defined as renters with very low incomes (below half the median in their area) who do not receive government housing assistance and who either paid more than half their monthly income for rent, lived in severely substandard conditions, or both. Worst case housing needs were 7.7 million in 2013, down from a historic high of 8.5 million in 2011, ending a sustained period of large increases. This represents a 9 percent decline since 2011 yet remains 9 percent greater than in 2009 and 49 percent greater than 2003. Worst case needs affect very low-income renters across racial and ethnic groups, and all types of households.2

    2 See http://www.huduser.org/portal/Publications/pdf/WorstCase2015_summary.pdf.

    Long-term fixed rate mortgages made through this Initiative will be especially valuable because smaller properties tend to command modest rents and owners are often unable to raise rents to cover upward interest rate adjustments without causing vacancies. Additionally, the “mom and pop” ownership of this inventory faces more constraints in accessing financing in recent years due to increasingly high credit standards and diminished lending, following a significant loss of many community and regional banks in the wake of the 2008 recession.

    HUD has chosen to include both Mission Based Lenders (defined to include CDFIs, other nonprofits and quasi-public and public agency lenders) as well as for-profit, private lenders (Private Lenders). Mission Based Lenders will be eligible for the first application round, beginning on the effective date of this Final Notice, while Private Lenders may apply 6 months later. Although the Initial Notice allowed for the admission of consortia or joint ventures comprised of Private Lenders under the control of a Mission Based Lender, HUD determined this would complicate program operations and introduce unnecessary complexity into the program. However, a newly formed organization could be created. The new entity will have to meet all the requirements of this Final Notice including qualifying as an approved FHA non-supervised mortgagee.

    The Initiative implemented by this Final Notice is intended to encourage eligible Mission Based and Private Lenders to move into this market or to serve it more fully with an additional source of capital. One common problem facing non-depository CDFIs and other Mission Based Lenders is access to long-term capital, which may limit their ability to provide housing finance to their communities. These organizations can qualify as QPEs by demonstrating that they meet minimum criteria including designation as non-profit entities or as public or quasi-public benefit corporations under the laws of their States of formation, and exemption from Federal income taxation pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. These Mission Based Lenders, as well as Private Lenders, must demonstrate that they meet various financial standards, and that a minimum amount of their recent loan activity has been dedicated to the financing of affordable housing.

    III. Authority

    Section 542(b) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, as amended by Section 307 of the Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform Act of 1994, authorizes HUD to enter into RSAs with QPEs. QPE is broadly defined in Section 542(b) to allow HUD to enter into agreements with a range of lenders. Following full consideration of the comments submitted in response to the Initial Notice, HUD is hereby issuing this Final Notice to provide details of the implementation of the Initiative along with descriptions of changes made to the Initiative in response to public comment and/or further consideration of HUD as to how the Initiative should be structured or implemented.

    IV. Key Changes Made to Initial Notice

    HUD announced a request for comments through a notice published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2013, at 78 FR 66043, which solicited public comment for a period of 60 days. The November 4, 2013, notice is referred to as the “Initial Notice.”

    The following highlights key changes made to the Initial Notice. HUD received 41 public comments from approximately 28 different sources of interest. Respondents included CDFIs and FHA/MAP lenders, but the most prominent respondent group was comprised of nonprofit organizations, mainly membership organizations engaged in affordable housing preservation activities. All public comments may be viewed in their entirety online under docket number FR-5728-N-01 at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=HUD-2013-0102. Also posted on HUD's Multifamily Web site at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/progdesc/progsec542b is a summary of the public comments and HUD's responses to the comments received to the Initial Notice.

    A. General Comments

    Virtually all commenters recognized a pervasive need for programs to deliver capital to small scale lenders, and to promote the preservation of unassisted, affordable, small rental buildings, and they were largely supportive of the Initiative concept and program purposes as described by HUD in the Initial Notice. Some specifically supported the use of HUD's Risk Sharing Program for this purpose as well. Comments made with respect to inclusion of coop housing were consistently positive. Virtually all of the commenters that mentioned HUD's parallel legislative efforts to enhance the program (described in Section I.B. of this Final Notice) were supportive of them.

    Although largely supportive of the Initiative, commenters recommended modifications to virtually all elements of the design of the proposed Initiative. Their recommendations addressed the types of lenders and consortia allowed to participate, the standards with which participating lenders should be selected, and the borrowers' ongoing financial and reporting requirements. Even the most fundamental parameters of the Risk Sharing Program drew comments. These included the affordability requirements, loan standards, loan application requirements, and various federal review requirements such as environmental reviews, etc. In some cases recommendations were contradictory, for example some recommended more restrictive affordability requirements while others recommended less restrictive requirements. This section summarizes the key changes made by HUD to the Initial Notice. Complete application requirements and program details can be found at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/progdesc/progsec542b.

    Specific Changes are highlighted below.

    1. Lender Eligibility: Expansion of lender eligibility to invite FHA MAP lenders to participate. Their participation will be deferred by 6 months from the initiation of the program, so that CDFIs and other nonprofit, public, or quasi-public organizations can start first and provide HUD with an opportunity to fine tune the program before having to manage larger numbers of participants.

    2. Applicant/Lender Qualification Requirements

    a. Demonstrable experience in affordable housing finance: Applicants are required to provide recent experience in lending for the production and/or preservation of “affordable housing” which for this purpose meets the minimum requirements of the Risk Sharing Program. During the past 2 years, no less than 20 percent or 20 of the applicant's multifamily housing loans originated, must have been made for affordable housing as their primary purpose. The Initial Notice required 33 percent of the applicant's loans over the past 2 years or 33 percent of dollars loaned to be dedicated to affordable housing purposes.

    b. Financial Capacity: Minimum financial capacity requirements were added since the Initial Notice. Applicants must either have a 20 percent net asset ratio and a minimum net worth of $7.5 million, or a CAMELS composite rating of 1 or 2 under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (UFIRS) 3 or equivalent nationally recognized rating system, and a minimum net worth of $7.5 million. No additional reserves are required so long as this standard is maintained. If the QPE can no longer meet this standard, a dedicated reserve must be established in a financial institution acceptable to HUD.

    3 See http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/comptrollers-handbook/bsp-2.PDF.

    c. Lender Staff Experience: The Initial Notice required lender's staff to demonstrate 3 years of originating FHA insured loans. This requirement was changed to permit alternative multifamily housing finance experience so long as it is substantial and fully described in the application.

    d. Lender's Net Income: Applicants will demonstrate financial solvency by disclosing annual income, as well as expenses and net income for each of the past 5 calendar years, and provide a computation of positive net income from the best 3 of those 5 years.

    e. Lender Staff Capacity: Applicants must demonstrate experience with multifamily housing mortgage servicing, and asset management, provide written procedures for work-outs, and describe management responsibilities.

    f. Certification of Compliance with Fair Housing and Civil Rights Requirements: An applicant must certify that it is the not subject of a suit filed by the Department of Justice or has an outstanding finding of noncompliance with a civil rights statute.

    3. Eligible Projects and Loan Size Limits: Projects must consist of 5 or more rental dwelling units (including cooperative dwelling units) on one site. Scattered sites can be considered so long as each site has a minimum of 5 units, and can demonstrate it is one marketable and manageable real estate asset. Loan amounts have been increased from $3 million to $5 million in certain high cost areas. Areas will be designated in HUD's “Annual Base City High Cost Areas” Mortgagee Letter. In the Initial Notice, eligible projects consisted of either 5-49 units, or if the project consisted of more than 49 units, the loan amount could not exceed $3,000,000.

    4. Building Owner Requirements: Audited financial statement requirements may be waived by the QPE when it can be justified by the nature of the project and that the borrower has sufficient capacity to successfully manage the property.

    5. Loan Terms: Loan terms are changed to allow for balloon payments at the end of year 15 or thereafter, with an amortization term of no more than 30 years. Alternatively, loans may fully amortize over a term of up to 40 years.

    V. HUD's Decisions on Applications

    HUD will act on Pre-Qualification submissions based on the criteria provided in the Application Requirements posted on the Web at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/progdesc/progsec542b, within approximately 30 days of the date HUD deems the application to be complete, either by denying the request or by inviting the applicant to submit a Final Application. HUD will act on Final Applications within approximately 60 days from the date of receipt of the Final Application. This will include notifying applicants determined to be eligible as QPEs, and delivering a RSA. It is important to note that Mission Based Lenders must be approved as FHA Non-supervised Mortgagees in advance of their approval as a QPE. An FHA Lender Approval Application, Form 92001-A, can be downloaded from HUD's Web site at: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=92001-a.pdf.

    VI. Evaluation of the Initiative

    One of the principal purposes of the Initiative is to determine whether, by providing Federal credit enhancement for refinancing and rehabilitation of small multifamily housing, the Initiative is successful in increasing the flow of credit to small multifamily properties. HUD will, therefore, undertake an evaluation of the Initiative to determine the success of the Initiative and will expect participation by selected lenders.

    VII. Findings and Certifications A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements contained in this document have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2502-0500 and 2502-0541. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    B. Environmental Impact

    A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) with respect to the environment has been made for this notice in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 4517th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Due to security measures at this HUD Headquarters Building, an advance appointment to review the FONSI must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (not a toll free number).

    Dated: June 30, 2015. Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17464 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5173-N-05] Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Tool: Solicitation of Comment—30-Day Notice Under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 AGENCY:

    Office of General Counsel, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice solicits public comment, for a period of 30 days, consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), on the Assessment Tool that would be provided by HUD for use by program participants in completing their assessment of fair housing as required by HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule. The purpose of the assessment of fair housing (AFH) is to aid HUD program participants in carrying out their statutory duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The Assessment Tool is designed to guide HUD program participants in undertaking a more thorough evaluation of fair housing issues in their respective jurisdictions, and setting goals to overcome issues that are barriers, among other things, to fair housing choice and opportunity. As stated in HUD's September 26, 2014, notice, this Assessment Tool is designed primarily for entitlement jurisdictions and for entitlement jurisdictions partnering with public housing agencies to use in submitting an AFH. The “primary” design is also for local governments and consortia required to submit consolidated plans under HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations. Although in the September 26, 2014, notice, HUD previously stated this assessment tool would not be used for regional collaborations, HUD believes that, given the changes made to this assessment tool based on comments received, this assessment tool can also be used for regional collaborations.

    The Assessment Tool published on September 26, 2014 provided a 60-day comment period, which commenced the notice and comment process required by the PRA. This 30-day notice completes the public comment process required by the PRA. With the issuance of this notice, and following consideration of public comments received in response to this notice, HUD will seek approval of the Assessment Tool from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assignment of an OMB control number. In accordance with the PRA, the Assessment Tool will undergo this public comment process every 3 years to retain OMB approval.

    With this 30-day notice, HUD is publishing two formats of the same assessment tool, each with the same content but slightly different organization. Specifically, the placement of the contributing factor analysis is the only difference between the two formats of the assessment tool. HUD is seeking comments on which format would be the most effective and efficient for program participants to use in conducting the required analysis of contributing factors and related fair housing issues.

    DATES:

    Comment Due Date: August 17, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.

    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.

    2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

    Note:

    To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.

    No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (fax) comments are not acceptable.

    Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals with speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10282, Washington, DC 20410-0500; telephone number 202-708-1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing and persons with speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On July 19, 2013, at 78 FR 43710, HUD published, for public comment, a proposed rule entitled “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH). The July 19, 2013, AFFH rule proposed a new approach that would enable program participants to more fully incorporate fair housing considerations into their existing planning processes and assist them in complying with their duty to affirmatively further fair housing as required by the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act) and other authorities. The new process, the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), builds upon and refines the prior fair housing planning process, called the analysis of impediments (AI). As part of the new AFH process HUD advised that it would issue an “Assessment Tool” for use by program participants in completing and submitting their AFHs. The Assessment Tool, which includes instructions and nationally-uniform data provided by HUD, consists of a series of questions designed to help program participants identify, among other things, areas of racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, patterns of integration and segregation, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs.

    At the time of publication of the July 19, 2013, AFFH proposed rule, HUD also posted and sought public comment on a draft “Data Documentation” paper online at www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt.html (under the heading Data Methodology). HUD requested public comments on the categories, sources, and format of data that would be provided by HUD to program participants to assist them in completing their AFH, and many program participants responded with comments on the Data Documentation paper.

    The Assessment Tool that HUD issued for public comment on September 26, 2014 (79 FR 57949) (Initial Assessment Tool), and found at www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt.html was, as HUD noted in the Summary of this notice, primarily designed for use by entitlement jurisdictions and by entitlement jurisdictions and PHAs that are jointly submitting an AFH. As further noted in the Summary, the Assessment Tool, which was the subject of the September 26, 2014, notice and this notice, is also designed for use by local governments and consortia required to submit consolidated plans under HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations, codified in 24 CFR part 91, specifically subparts C and E, which pertain to local governments and consortia.1 In this notice, HUD uses the term “entitlement jurisdictions” to refer to all jurisdictions for which this tool is primarily designed.

    1 In HUD's AFFH proposed rule published on July 19, 2013, at 78 FR 43710, HUD noted that a consortium participating in HUD's HOME Investment Partnerships program (HOME program), and which term (consortium) is defined 24 CFR 91.5, must submit an AFH. HUD stated that a HOME consortium is considered a single unit of general local government (see 78 FR at 43731).

    In the September 26, 2014, notice HUD also advised that the Initial Assessment Tool was not the tool that would be used by the following program participants: PHAs that would not be making a joint submission; States; and Insular Areas. While the Initial Assessment Tool was tailored primarily for entitlement jurisdictions and joint submissions by entitlement jurisdictions and PHAs, HUD invited comments by all types of program participants, as it, “present[ed] the basic structure of the Assessment Tool to be used by all program participants, and is illustrative of the questions that will be asked of all program participants.”

    HUD followed the September 26, 2014, publication with a notice published on January 15, 2015, at 80 FR 2062, which solicited public comment on a staggered submission deadline for AFHs to be submitted for specific types of program participants. In the January 2015 notice, HUD advised that it was considering providing certain HUD program participants—States, Insular Areas, qualified PHAs,2 and jurisdictions receiving a small Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) grant with the option of submitting their first AFH at a date later than would otherwise be required for other program participants. In addition to proposing a staggered submission deadline, HUD had previously announced that it would be developing separate assessment tools for certain types of program participants, including States and insular areas, PHAs and program participants submitting AFHs in a regional collaboration.

    2 Section 2702 of title II of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) defined “qualified PHAs” as PHAs that have fewer than 550 units, including public housing and section 8 vouchers.

    II. The 60-Day Notice and Initial Assessment Tool

    In developing the assessment tool, HUD had four key objectives in mind. First, the assessment tool must ask questions that would be sufficient to enable program participants to perform a meaningful assessment of key fair housing issues and contributing factors 3 and set meaningful fair housing goals and priorities. Second, the assessment tool must clearly convey the analysis of fair housing issues and contributing factors that program participants must undertake in order for an AFH to be accepted by HUD. Third, the assessment tool must be designed so program participants would be able to use it to prepare an AFH that would be accepted by HUD without unnecessary burden. Fourth, the assessment tool must facilitate HUD's review of the AFHs submitted by program participants, since the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule requires HUD to determine within a certain period of time whether to accept or not accept each AFH or revised AFH submitted to HUD.

    3 The term “fair housing determinants” was changed to “fair housing contributing factors” in the AFFH final rule. This notice therefore uses the term “fair housing contributing factors.”

    With these objectives in mind, HUD issued the Initial Assessment Tool for public comment for a period of 60 days. The 60-day notice then provided a detailed description of the five main sections of the Assessment Tool: Section I—Cover Sheet and Certification; Section II—Executive Summary; Section III—Community Participation Process; Section IV—Analysis; and Section V—Fair Housing Goals and Priorities.

    In the 60-day notice, in addition to soliciting comment on the Initial Assessment Tool overall, HUD specifically solicited comments on the following topics:

    1. The description of local data and local knowledge;

    2. The clarity of the options for including information about the community participation in the AFH;

    3. The adequacy of the list of determinants (now contributing factors) in order to produce a meaningful AFH;

    4. Aspects of the Publicly Supported Housing (PSH) subsection, specifically: (a) The type of program participant required to include project-level data in tabular format for various categories of PSH; (b) the formatting of the tables; (c) the most effective ways of providing assessment of project-level data in an Assessment Tool used by States;

    5. Whether HUD inadvertently failed to consider fair housing issues relating to individuals with disabilities by considering Disability and Access issues separately;

    6. The sufficiency and clarity of the Initial Assessment Tool for addressing additional fair housing issues and inability to answer questions due to a lack of data and whether HUD should include instructions on how to address these issues;

    7. The content of the tool, the clarity of the questions, and areas of information that are included in the tool, but that are unnecessary to conduct a meaningful AFH, and areas that HUD may have overlooked that should be included in the Initial Assessment Tool;

    8. Whether the Initial Assessment Tool can be used by program participants independently, without the need to rely on outside contractors to conduct an AFH;

    9. Any additional instructions that would be helpful;

    10. The costs associated with gathering and analyzing data necessary for conducting an AFH;

    11. Whether program participants anticipate using federal funds to complete an AFH;

    12. What strategies program participants can use to reduce the cost and burden of completing an AFH and how to reduce costs of obtaining local data and local knowledge;

    13. How do program participants envision joint participation in completing the AFH;

    14. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the agency and whether it will have practical utility;

    15. The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of collecting the information;

    16. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    17. Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on those who are required to respond.

    III. Public Comments on the 60-Day Notice

    By the close of the comment period on November 25, 2015, HUD received 198 public comments. Commenters included PHAs, CDBG grantees, including States and local governments, advocacy groups, nonprofit organizations, and various individuals. All public comments received in response to the 60-day notice can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=HUD-2014-0080-0001. HUD appreciates the time and effort of all the public commenters in preparing their comments. The information was helpful and valuable.

    This section provides a summary of the most significant issues raised by commenters and HUD's responses, including where HUD made changes to the Assessment Tool.

    Overview of Significant Issues Raised

    The majority of comments offered positive and constructive recommendations for improving the Assessment Tool. Many commenters provided suggestions for expanding certain portions of the assessment tool and for improving the questions and analysis required. Many comments also raised concerns about the assessment tool's burden, the timing of introducing a new analysis mechanism, the reliability of the data to be provided, and its content and the impact on specific types of program participants, including small entities, States, and others. The areas of concern identified by the majority of commenters are discussed below.

    Burden

    Many commenters stated that the Initial Assessment Tool imposes a significant burden on program participants in several ways. They stated that the amount of time and resources required to complete the Initial Assessment Tool itself is unduly burdensome, especially in light of the amount of local data and local knowledge that program participants must use. Commenters also stated that the community participation process could be very burdensome, especially for jurisdictions such as an entire State. Commenters stated that the additional time and resources required to conduct the type of community participation contemplated would be unduly burdensome. Commenters further stated that the amount of information, both HUD-provided data supplemented by local data and local knowledge, and the number of questions, makes the Initial Assessment Tool unreasonably complex and would likely result in the additional burden of having to hire a consultant in order to complete the AFH.

    Commenters also stated that the Initial Assessment Tool would be overly and unnecessarily burdensome on States. While commenters stated that they understood there would be a separate assessment tool for States, they nevertheless expressed concern with having to analyze data that entitlement jurisdictions in their respective States may have already analyzed in preparing their own AFHs. The commenters stated that States should not have to engage in duplicative, redundant analyses.

    Other commenter stated that they thought the Initial Assessment Tool would clarify the “region” to be analyzed by program participants because the rule did not provide sufficient specificity.

    Timing

    Several commenters stated that the release of the Initial Assessment Tool is premature. They stated that the AFFH rule should be finalized, the development of the other types of assessment tools to be used should be completed, and that HUD should wait to complete development of the Assessment Tool based on the recent disparate impact case and the upcoming Supreme Court case, which was heard in early 2015 and decided June 25, 2015. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination caused by policies or practices that have an unjustified disparate impact because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability. Texas Dep't of Hous. & Cmty Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys Project, No. 13-1371, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4249 (June 25, 2015). In that decision, the Supreme Court also acknowledged “the Fair Housing Act's continuing role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society.” Id. at *42.

    Data

    Commenters stated that the Initial Assessment Tool requires too much local data and local knowledge. Other commenters took issue with the data provided by HUD, stating that, in the past, HUD data has been inaccurate and out of date. Commenters stated that the HUD-provided data is unwieldy and difficult to understand. Several commenters specifically referred to the efficacy of using dot density maps and the requirement that the analysis be conducted by neighborhood when the data is at the Census tract level.

    Commenters stated that, assuming the HUD-provided data is reliable, the data is most useful at the regional level, but will be inefficient for use by States. Other commenters requested that the HUD-provided data include datasets of local information that are already available to HUD, so that program participants need not expend additional resources to gather such data.

    Content of the Assessment Tool

    Several commenters stated that the Initial Assessment Tool is too subjective, stating that the Initial Assessment Tool makes an inappropriate leap from correlation to causation. The commenters stated that there may be alternative causes for the demographic makeup of a certain jurisdiction. Commenters requested that HUD eliminate any questions in the Initial Assessment Tool requiring an essay-type of response, which, the commenters stated, only adds to the subjective nature of the analysis. These commenters stated that they believe the Initial Assessment Tool will not achieve its stated objective because it promotes the creation of policy based on incomplete, and often subjective, information.

    Commenters stated that they found the Initial Assessment Tool to be incomplete. These commenters stated that HUD should be asking different questions than those posed in the Initial Assessment Tool, or should add questions to account for situations that HUD may have overlooked. For example, several commenters expressed appreciation for the separate section in the Initial Assessment Tool dedicated to Disability and Access Issues. However, other commenters stated that disability should be a topic that is discussed throughout the Initial Assessment Tool and not confined to one section.

    Other commenters stated that HUD does not adequately take into account the issues of housing opportunity and equity affecting women, especially in terms of domestic and sexual violence issues, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) individuals and families. Commenters stated that while there is a lack of data on LGBT individuals and families at the national level, the next version of the assessment tool could provide a mechanism to begin gathering such data. Commenters also made recommendations about items that should be added to the list of contributing factors and suggested edits to the existing language in the Initial Assessment Tool.

    Several commenters raised concerns about the Dissimilarity Index. The commenters stated that the next version of the assessment tool should use multiple measures of segregation, because, according to the commenters, the Dissimilarity Index alone is insufficient to fully understand residential segregation patterns in a community and region. The commenters recommended that HUD include additional measures of segregation besides only providing the Dissimilarity Index.

    Many commenters stated that the lack of a section on “Action Steps” to be taken by program participants weakens the overall purpose of the AFH, and inclusion of such a section would aid in enforcement.

    Other commenters stated that the Initial Assessment Tool lacked sufficient guidance for program participants. The commenters requested that HUD define certain terms, add clearer instructions, provide hands-on, in-person training for completing the tool, and develop a helpline at HUD to aid program participants in navigating the complexities of the tool and the data provided.

    Small Entities, Joint Participation, and Local Control Issues

    Commenters that are or that represent small PHAs and small jurisdictions stated that the Initial Assessment Tool would not be useful for them, and would impose a significant burden. These commenters stated that one way to deal with this burden would be for HUD to encourage, or even require, program participants to complete the AFH jointly in order to reduce the costs of the community participation process and the actual analysis conducted in the Initial Assessment Tool. In contrast, other commenters who stated they would be willing to participate in jointly submitting an AFH raised concerns about doing so and signing a joint certification. The commenters requested that HUD modify the certification language because the commenters stated that they cannot attest to the veracity of the information provided by other program participants.

    In a similar vein, commenters, mostly States and local governments, expressed concern that the AFH will result in a loss of local control and will interfere with local decision-making. States and local governments, and PHAs all submitted comments relating to their respective scopes of authority with respect to assessing fair housing choice. These commenters stated that the Assessment Tool appears to be asking program participants to conduct an analysis and take actions beyond the scope of their authority in order to implement plans to effect change with respect to fair housing. The commenters stated that they lack control over other entities and, consequently, cannot be expected to implement plans relating to fair housing.

    III. This 30-Day Notice and Revised Assessment Tool A. Changes to the Assessment Tool General Approach to Content

    In response to public comment HUD has made several changes to the Initial Assessment Tool, which HUD believes address many of the burden and content concerns expressed by the commenters. These changes have resulted in a revised Assessment Tool (Revised Assessment Tool) that is shorter in length, contains fewer questions, and clarifies many of the questions that were in the previous version, and reduces the need for some duplicative analysis. The Revised Assessment Tool also includes detailed instructions to further assist program participants in answering the questions in the AFH and guide them on how to use the HUD-provided data. It also includes an Appendix providing further detail on each of the Contributing Factors referenced in the tool.

    HUD is also providing a link for program participants and the public to the Geospatial Mapping Tool (Data Tool), which contains interactive maps and exportable tables. The Data Tool also attempts to provide greater clarity in response to commenters' concerns about the area of analysis, and provides data for the region based on the program participant's Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The Data Tool will also be posted online at: http://www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt.html.

    The Data Tool contains the same data as that which was released on September 26, 2014, with some minor changes. Now, the data is accessible through an interactive application on a Web-based interface. Additionally, Table 14 now includes two transit-related indices.

    HUD anticipates further changes to the Data Tool prior to its final release for use by program participants. Some of those anticipated changes include:

    • Consolidating several redundant tables;

    • Modifications to improve the visual presentation of the maps (i.e., contrast and sizes of dots and icons on maps);

    • Improved Data Tool functionality to allow the user to better access data on: (1) Locations and demographics of publicly supported housing developments, including census tracts; and (2) the ability to export maps and tables by the program participant for use during the community participation process and as part of the AFH submission to HUD. The export functionality would apply to both maps and tables. It would not only provide access to the data, but also allow users to filter and sort demographic data for both developments and census tracts by common characteristics. The functionality would be similar to that in HUD's CPD Maps tool. This is intended to reduce burden in using the HUD-provided data to answer the required questions in the Assessment Tool while providing the data that will enable program participants to conduct analyses required to identify key fair housing issues;

    • Addition of maps to match updates in the Opportunity Indices;

    • Additional datasets to correspond with the analysis in the Assessment Tool;

    • Minor changes in terminology to match with the AFH Tool and final rule; and

    • Minor changes in descriptions of the data provided (i.e., “top 5” becoming “5 most populous”).

    The Revised Assessment Tool includes substantial revisions to the questions that were in the Initial Assessment Tool. HUD has reduced the total number of questions in the analysis section while improving the clarity and utility of the analysis that is required. The Initial Assessment Tool would have required contributing factors to be identified twice, once separately and again in answering the specific questions. The Revised Assessment Tool only requires that contributing factors be identified once. The contributing factors analysis has also been revised by removing the previous requirement to list all contributing factors and then rate their degree of significance. In the Revised Assessment Tool, program participants are required to identify those contributing factors that significantly impact specific fair housing issues, and for the purposes of setting goals prioritize them, giving the highest priority to those factors that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact compliance with fair housing or civil rights law.

    In the Revised Assessment Tool, program participants are asked to provide one overarching narrative to justify the prioritization of contributing factors, rather than a separate explanation for each factor and that factor's level of significance as presented in the Initial Assessment Tool. In addition, the requirement to prioritize goals that was in the Initial Assessment Tool is removed in the Revised Assessment Tool. HUD expects that these changes will reduce burden while still providing the needed information and analysis regarding contributing factors. So long as program participants' goals address significant contributing factors and related fair housing issues, and can be reasonably expected to affirmatively further fair housing, participants' goals can vary.

    In the Initial Assessment Tool, separate questions that asked about different protected classes have been combined in the Revised Assessment Tool into one question about all protected classes for which data are provided (for example, race, national origin, and limited English proficiency (LEP)). With this change, program participants can now formulate one answer taking into account all of the data at one time, rather than provide two or three separate answers.

    In the Revised Assessment Tool, the wording of certain questions in the analysis section was improved to remove unnecessary complexity and hone the analysis to have the greatest impact. Several questions were reworded to avoid any interpretation that HUD was asking program participants to prepare an “inventory” or long list of projects or developments. Other questions were revised because some program participants might construe them to include unintended requests for unduly complex analyses. HUD found that other questions were worded too broadly and left program participants with uncertainty as to the information needed. These questions were narrowed in scope. Throughout the Assessment, HUD made an effort to clarify questions so program participants would understand the question being asked and the analysis sought.

    In response to commenters concerns that the requirement to obtain and use local data was too burdensome, the AFFH Final Rule clarifies that “local data” refer to “metrics, statistics, and other quantified information, that are subject to a determination of statistical validity by HUD, relevant to the program participant's geographic areas of analysis,” and are data “that can be found through a reasonable amount of searching, are readily available at little or no cost, and are necessary for the completion of the AFH using the Assessment Tool.” This clarification is based on the definition of local data included in the final rule, and referenced in the instructions, as data that is already available and easily accessible by the program participant, or data that can be made available at little or no cost. Local knowledge is also defined in the AFFH final rule as information to be provided by the program participant that relates to the participant's geographic areas of analysis and that is relevant to the program participant's AFH, is known or becomes known to the program participant, and is necessary for the completion of the AFH using the Assessment Tool. The instructions in the Revised Assessment Tool elaborate on “information” as including laws and policies, common neighborhood or area names and borders, information about the housing market and housing stock. Program participants are also required to consider additional information obtained through the community participation and consultation process that is required by the rule.

    Additional comments were received on the Initial Assessment Tool requesting further instructions and guidance for program participants. Accordingly, instructions have been added to the Revised Assessment Tool. These instructions provide additional explanations on the use of local data and knowledge in addition to the HUD-provided data. The instructions link each question to the specific maps and data tables that are relevant to that question, along with additional considerations or examples that program participants should keep in mind when answering. These instructions add clarity and guidelines for effective use of the assessment tool. Additionally, HUD is providing an additional appendix in the Revised Assessment Tool, Appendix C, which contains short explanations of each contributing factor contained in the Revised Assessment Tool.

    The inclusion of instructions also allows HUD to remove blocks of references to maps and tables that were included in various places in the Initial Assessment Tool, and instead provides a list and short description of the data that will be available on the Data Tool in Appendix A (maps) and Appendix B (tables) of the Revised Assessment Tool. These references, while helpful, in some cases provided less guidance and had the effect of breaking up the flow of questions, with the result that the questions were difficult to comprehend and follow. By removing these references and including instructions HUD believes the Revised Assessment Tool is clearer and easier to understand and complete.

    In response to the Initial Assessment Tool, commenters requested more clarity regarding joint submissions. The instructions in the Revised Assessment Tool specify that, when submitting jointly, each program participant is responsible for identifying contributing factors and setting goals within its jurisdiction; however, program participants submitting jointly are permitted to set joint goals where appropriate. The Initial Assessment Tool did not include this instruction.

    Cover Sheet

    HUD is committed to assisting program participants in completing their assessment tool in a manner that will allow them to make progress in affirmatively furthering fair housing. While the Initial Assessment Tool provided, at part I item 12, for “Departmental acceptance or rejection,” the Revised Assessment Tool refers, at item 11, to “Departmental acceptance or non-acceptance.” This change signifies that rather than ending the submission and review of the AFH, non-acceptance will result in a process in which HUD works with the program participant by explaining the reasons for non-acceptance and provides the program participant with an opportunity to submit a revised AFH to address those concerns.

    Executive Summary

    The Initial Assessment Tool only contained a heading of “Executive Summary,” but did not include any further guidance for program participants on what to include in the Executive Summary. The Revised Assessment Tool explains and clarifies the information that program participants should include in the Executive Summary.

    Assessment of Past Goals and Actions

    The Initial Assessment Tool sought information, at the very end of the analysis, on past goals and actions, asking “how has the experience . . . with past goals influenced the selection of current goals?” HUD proposes to place this information at the beginning of the assessment rather than at the end, so that the assessment of current goals can be informed by past experience. Accordingly, the Revised Assessment Tool moves the assessment of past goals and actions to Section IV, immediately prior to the analysis.

    Analysis Segregation/Integration

    The Revised Assessment Tool simplifies this topic, which in the Initial Assessment Tool included segregation, integration, and racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPS) under one heading. However, since segregated neighborhoods may be R/ECAPs, but are not always R/ECAPS, the same analysis may not apply equally to segregation/integration and R/ECAPS. In order to facilitate the analysis in these cases, in the Revised Assessment Tool, R/ECAPS is moved to its own separate subsection, and the questions are narrowed in scope to reflect this change.

    Also, in the context of segregation/integration, the Initial Assessment Tool considered the Dissimilarity Index a topic area, B.1, but did not provide sufficient guidance as to how this topic was to be addressed. The Dissimilarity Index is a method of analyzing the degree of segregation or integration in a particular geographic area and serves as an analytical tool rather than being a distinct topic within the analysis. The instructions in the Revised Assessment Tool describe, in detail, how it should be appropriately used in conducting the analysis.

    In addition, the Revised Assessment Tool removed B.2., the separate Geographic Analysis subtopic, because a geography-based analysis is already required in the analysis of segregation/integration and R/ECAPS (and, indeed, throughout the assessment tool), and a separate topic on geography is redundant in this context.

    R/ECAPs

    As previously discussed in this notice, HUD has created a separate subsection for R/ECAPs, instead of having the analysis be combined with the Segregation/Integration analysis. The Revised Assessment Tool contains questions specifically about R/ECAPs and the questions have been narrowed in scope from the Initial Assessment Tool.

    Disparities in Access to Opportunity

    In the Revised Assessment Tool, this topic is changed from the topic entitled “Disparities in Access to Community Assets and Exposure to Adverse Community Factors” in the Initial Assessment Tool to “Disparities in Access to Opportunity.” Instead of two separate topics on disparities in access to community assets and exposure to adverse community factors, the Revised Assessment Tool combines the questions under these topics under a single heading. HUD has also consolidated and streamlined questions, including those on access to jobs, access to transportation, and exposure to poverty and environmental health hazards.

    Disproportionate Housing Needs

    In the Revised Assessment Tool, HUD has consolidated certain questions in this section to eliminate duplication.

    Publicly Supported Housing 4 Analysis

    4 The term “publicly supported housing” refers to housing assisted with funding through federal, state, or local agencies or programs as well as housing that is financed or administered by or through any such agencies or programs. HUD is currently providing data on five specific categories of housing: Public Housing; Project-Based Section 8; other HUD multifamily housing (including Section 202—Supportive Housing for the Elderly, Section 811—Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities, and other multifamily assisted properties); Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) housing; and Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV). Other publicly supported housing relevant to the analysis includes housing funded through state and local programs, other federal agencies, such as USDA and VA, or other HUD-funded housing not captured in the five categories listed above.

    In the Revised Assessment Tool, HUD makes several revisions to this subtopic. Under “Publicly Supported Housing Location and Occupancy,” question ii, which in the Initial Assessment Tool was on “the racial composition of occupants in publicly supported housing in R/ECAPs,” is broadened in the Revised Assessment Tool to “publicly supported housing demographics.” This revision recognizes that segregation in housing can involve protected characteristics other than race.

    Also under this subtopic, question iii, iv, and v in the Initial Assessment Tool asked the same question about race or ethnicity of residents of public housing, other HUD multifamily developments, and project-based Section 8 housing, and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) housing. The Revised Assessment Tool streamlines these questions into a single question to be answered with respect to each of the four categories of housing. Additionally the question itself is streamlined by removing a sentence about segregation that would be redundant of an earlier question under the same topic, and the wording of the subtopic has been simplified to be more understandable. HUD also determined that several questions relating to policies for various housing programs were more appropriately considered in the Contributing Factors analysis.

    The Revised Assessment Tool also includes properties converted under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) in new question (1)(b)(iv)(A).

    The Revised Assessment Tool also contains an analysis within the publicly supported housing section of disparities in access to opportunities for residents of publicly supported housing.

    Disability and Access Analysis

    The Revised Assessment Tool removes an instruction that was included in the Initial Assessment Tool that read:

    There are limited sources of nationally consistent data on the extent to which individuals with different types of disabilities are able to access housing and community assets. To complete this section, program participants should solicit input from individuals with disabilities and disability advocates, who often have the most relevant information on these topics.

    This instruction was included in the Initial Assessment Tool to help explain why HUD was placing Disability and Access Issues in a separate section of the AFH analysis. However, HUD recognizes that this instruction in the Initial Assessment Tool may have been confusing to some public commenters and may have suggested that extra efforts to obtain local data and local knowledge would be required to complete the Disability and Access Issues section of the assessment tool. To eliminate the potential confusion that this instruction may have caused, the instruction in the Revised Assessment Tool identifies specific questions for which HUD provides data as well as those questions for which HUD does not have data. There is no requirement in the Disability and Access Issues section for program participants to make an extra effort to obtain specific local data. Instead, as required in all sections of the Assessment Tool, program participants are only required to obtain and use local data that can be found through a reasonable amount of search and are readily available at little or no cost.

    The Disability and Access Analysis section has been streamlined in the Revised Assessment Tool. A question on “the principal challenges faced by persons with disabilities in the Jurisdiction and Region” has been removed, as that question is answered by the discussion of the disparities in access to opportunity and the contributing factors within the same section. Additionally, the list of opportunity indicators (in the context of disparities in access to opportunity) is streamlined in the Revised Assessment Tool.

    In the list of “Disability and Access Issues Contributing Factors,” a new item on “State or local laws, policies, or practices that discourage individuals with disabilities from being placed in or living in apartments, family homes, and other integrated settings” is added in the Revised Assessment Tool. This addition recognizes that there can be laws, policies, or practices affecting persons with disabilities other than land use and zoning laws, especially in the context of the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).5

    5 HUD's Statement on the Role of Housing in Accomplishing the Goals of Olmstead can be found at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=OlmsteadGuidnc060413.pdf.

    Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis

    This section, which was titled “Fair Housing Compliance and Infrastructure” in the Initial Assessment Tool, has been abbreviated through the elimination of a question and the questions associated with the contributing factors, and has been renamed in the Revised Assessment Tool.

    Contributing Factors

    As noted in the Summary above, HUD is providing two formats of the Revised Assessment Tool for public comment. The two formats do not differ in content or analysis required by the assessment tool, but do differ with respect to where the analysis of contributing factors occurs.

    Option A of the Revised Assessment Tool provides a categorized list of the most common contributing factors relating to all fair housing issues (but it is not an exhaustive list of all possible contributing factors) in one location following the analysis sections of Segregation/Integration, R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs. The same categorized list of contributing factors also follows each of the following sections: Publicly Supported Housing Analysis; Disability and Access Analysis; and Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis. In identifying contributing factors, program participants are instructed to note which fair housing issue(s) (Segregation/Integration, R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs) the selected contributing factor impacts. Program participants must also include any other contributing factors impacting fair housing issues in their jurisdiction or region that are not included in the provided lists.

    Option B of the Revised Assessment Tool contains more discrete lists of the most common contributing factors (but each list is not an exhaustive list of all possible contributing factors) after each section of analysis: Segregation/Integration, R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, Disproportionate Housing Needs, Publicly Supported Housing Analysis, Disability and Access Analysis, and Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity, and Resources Analysis. For the last three sections of analysis, program participants are instructed to note which fair housing issue(s) (Segregation/Integration, R/ECAPs, Disparities in Access to Opportunity, and Disproportionate Housing Needs) the selected contributing factor impacts. It is unnecessary to do this step for the first four sections of Option B because of the placement of the more discrete contributing factor lists after each of those sections. Program participants are also required to include any other contributing factors impacting fair housing issues in their jurisdiction or region that are not included in the provided lists.

    Both formats of the Revised Assessment Tool also contain short explanations of all the listed contributing factors in Appendix C. These explanations provide program participants with additional guidance about each contributing factor, which may enable program participants to make more informed selections of contributing factors when conducting their analyses.

    Fair Housing Goals and Priorities

    The Initial Assessment Tool contained a table that seemed confusing, as well as subjective questions that related to the selection and prioritization of contributing factors (then called determinants) and goals. The Revised Assessment Tool provides program participants with additional guidance on how to prioritize contributing factors, creating a more objective framework for analysis. Additionally, the requirement that goals also be prioritized has been removed. The Revised Assessment Tool provides a new table for program participants to use when setting goals. The table is designed to make it easier for program participants to set goals as required by the AFFH final rule.

    IV. Findings and Certifications Paperwork Reduction Act

    With HUD's decision to prepare program participant-specific assessment tools, the information collection burden addressed in this notice is limited to this assessment tool that has been designed for entitlement jurisdictions and the possibility of program participants seeking to collaborate regionally on an AFH. The public reporting is estimated to include the time for reviewing the instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

    As HUD is furnishing a significant amount of data directly to the program participants, the burden in completing the Assessment Tool is reduced. Where HUD is not providing data, as noted earlier in this preamble, program participants are to consider and in some cases utilize local data and local knowledge that is available or can be found at little or no cost. This refers to data already publicly available and reasonably easy to access. This does not refer to obscure data that may not be known or easily found, that requires an independent data or information collection effort such as a local survey or that requires extensive analytical expertise or staff effort, for instance, in manipulating data sets or developing a complex methodology for analyzing complex data that may be available. With the data that HUD provides for use with the Assessment Tool supplemented by available local data and local knowledge, HUD does not anticipate the need for any program participant to turn to outside consultants to collect data and conduct the assessment.

    In addition, local knowledge may be supplemented with information received through the public participation process. In such cases, program participants retain the discretion to consider data or information collected through this process as well as the manner in which it may be incorporated into the AFH, whether in the Section V (Analysis) or Section III (Community Participation Process) of the AFH, with an option to include extensive or lengthy comments in appendices or attachments. In short, the receipt of extensive public comments may require staff effort to review and consider input but would not result in a mandate to incur substantial additional costs and staff hours to do so. To the contrary, the public participation process should be viewed as a tool to acquire additional information to reduce burden.

    It is also important to note that the estimate of burden, in terms of staff hours and costs, is not an estimate of net new costs. That is, the cost of conducting the existing AI that was a legal obligation prior to the AFFH final rule, and which is now replaced by the AFH, is not deducted from the new estimate. Costs for conducting the AI for entitlement jurisdictions varied substantially and often involved costs for hiring consultants and outside parties to conduct the AI. HUD is making substantial effort and investment, by providing the data and mapping tool and ongoing technical assistance to improve the entire AFH process as compared to the previous, often cumbersome AI process.

    Changes in Estimate From the 60-Day PRA Notice

    Compared to previous hour/burden estimate in the 60-day notice, several key changes, as discussed above, were made in an effort to reduce the burden of the analysis required in the assessment. Changes in the methodology for the estimate of total burden compared to the estimate in the 60-day notice are discussed here below.

    In addition, HUD is revising the estimate of how many program participants will employ this version of the Assessment Tool, by lowering the estimate of the number of PHAs that will likely engage in joint collaboration with block grant entitlement jurisdictions from one-half of all PHAs to approximately one-third of all PHAs. Many PHAs will however continue to engage in joint participation for the completion of the AFH, for instance by partnering with a State entity, particularly in the case of small PHAs who are located outside the geographic area of an entitlement jurisdiction.

    In addition to the changes discussed, HUD has also increased its estimate of the burden involved in completing an AFH using this Assessment Tool. While the Revised Assessment Tool has been streamlined compared to the Initial Assessment Tool, many public comments were received during the 60-day public comment period stating that the 200-hour per program participant estimate as too low. Accordingly, HUD has increased this to 240 hours per entitlement jurisdiction submitting an AFH. However, it is not likely that all entities participating together will all incur the full cost as they would if they were submitting an AFH separately. Thus, the hour estimate for PHA partners using this Assessment Tool is estimated at 120 hours, which would include fixed costs (e.g. staff training, conducting community participation, setting PHA goals) but includes reduced costs for performing the entirety of the assessment itself. It is also foreseeable that many entities will choose to divide responsibilities differently based on their local characteristics and that the split of hours used for the overall estimate may vary in many cases.

    Costs in the First Year

    Approximately 25 entitlement jurisdictions will be required to submit an AFH in the summer and fall of 2016. In recognition of the need to mitigate any new burden associated with this effort, the AFFH final rule provides for staggered submission of AFHs. Staggered submission delays the application of the AFFH final rule for certain program participants, such as States, Insular Areas, and PHAs that opt to submit their own AFH without an entitlement jurisdiction partner. In addition, because of the Consolidated Plan cycle, a relatively small group of program participants will submit an AFH within the first year following the effective date of the AFFH final rule, but the majority of program participants will be submitting their AFH in later years. For program participants that will submit an AFH in later years, HUD anticipates taking additional steps to reduce regulatory burden, which may include dissemination of best practices obtained from the first round of AFH submissions.

    Assuming approximately the same number of PHAs choose to partner with entitlement jurisdictions in the first round of AFH submissions (joint AFH), the burden estimate for completing an AFH would increase somewhat, to take into account some additional effort for community participation and goal setting. However, the cost of conducting the analysis would be shared. For instance, PHAs could conduct the portion of the assessment related to publicly supported housing, with the entitlement jurisdiction conducting the bulk of the remainder of the analysis. There would be some costs for the two types of program participants to coordinate and communicate with each other, but in general total costs are expected to be less than if each program participant chose to complete their own separate AFH.

    Using the estimated hours of the effort required by type of program participant, and assuming approximately 25 entitlement jurisdictions will partner with 25 PHAs to submit joint AFHs, the first year's burden would be approximately 9,000 total hours (6,000 for 25 entitlement jurisdictions and 3,000 for 25 PHAs). This estimate is included within the total estimated burden.

    HUD has committed to provide technical assistance to program participants in completing their AFHs, and HUD anticipates targeted technical assistance for the relatively small number of program participants that would be required to submit an AFH in the first year following the effective date of the AFFH final rule. Such targeted technical assistance is anticipated to mitigate burden due to the change in the AFH from the AI model which relied heavily on the Fair Housing Planning Guide that was last issued in the 1990s.

    Small Entities

    HUD has adopted several important changes to reduce burden for small entities in particular. HUD's AFFH final rule includes a delay in the submission date for small entitlement jurisdictions, defined as jurisdictions receiving $500,000 or less in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 CDBG funds, and small PHAs that are qualified PHAs (with respect to size are defined as PHAs with fewer than 550 units, including public housing and section 8 vouchers).

    The costs for entitlement jurisdictions receiving a small CDBG grant are included in the total burden estimate for this notice, even though they have a later AFH submission date and their costs will arise in later years. The burden estimate also allows that some qualified PHAs may choose to participate with entitlement jurisdictions that will use this Assessment Tool, which is the subject of this notice. However, because many such PHAs are located outside of metropolitan areas, HUD anticipates that these PHAs will choose, instead, to partner with a State. All program participants that are required to submit an AFH under the AFFH final rule are encouraged to partner with other entities to submit a joint AFH, or regional AFH.

    Also, as stated above, the estimated burden per program participant is an average within a wider range of actual costs. Smaller program participants will have much less total burden both in terms of staff hours and costs.

    Encouraging Coordination

    All HUD program participants are greatly encouraged to issue joint AFHs and to consider regional cooperation. More coordination in the initial years between entitlement jurisdictions and PHAs will reduce total costs for both types of program participants in later years. In addition, combining and coordinating some elements of the Consolidated Plan and the PHA Plan will reduce total costs for both types of program participants. Completing an AFH in earlier years will also help reduce costs later, for instance by incorporating the completed analysis into later planning documents, such as the PHA plan, will help to better inform planning and goal setting decisions ahead of time.

    The Revised Assessment Tool is available at http://www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt.html. Information on the estimated public reporting burdens is provided in the following table.

    Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Number of
  • respondents *
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Frequency of response ** Estimated
  • average
  • time for
  • requirement
  • (in hours) ***
  • Estimated
  • burden
  • (in hours)
  • CFR Section Reference: § 5.154(d) (Assessment of Fair Housing) 2,508 total entities (1,194 Entitlement Jurisdictions and approximately 1,314 PHAs) * 1 Once every five years (or three years in the case of 3-Year Consolidated Plans) ** Entitlement Jurisdiction 1,194 *** 240 286,560 PHAs 1,314 * **** 120 157,680 Total Burden 2,508 * 1,194 444,240 * This template is primarily designed for entitlement jurisdictions, of which there are approximately 1,194, and PHAs seeking to join with entitlement jurisdictions on a jointly submitted AFH. There are 3,942 PHAs and HUD estimates that approximately 1/3 of PHAs may seek to join with an entitlement jurisdiction and submit a joint AFH. The Total Number of responses is listed as 1,194 based on the number of entitlement jurisdictions that will submit AFHs using this Assessment Tool. The total hours and burden are based on the total estimated number of both types of program participants and the “estimated average time” listed for type of program participant. ** The timing of submission depends upon whether an entitlement jurisdiction submits its consolidated plan every 3 years or every 5 years. *** As noted in the explanatory text, this is an average within a range, with some AFH requiring either more or less time and effort based on jurisdiction size and complexity. The 240 hour estimate is an increase from the previous 200 hour estimate in the 60-Day PRA Notice, published on September 26, 2014. The increased time estimate takes into account public comments on the 60-Day Notice. For some joint participants, the division of hours may be higher or lower based on the program participant's areas of expertise, program operations or through mutual agreement. **** PHAs participating in joint submissions using the Assessment Tool under this notice are assumed to have some fixed costs, including staff training, conducting community participation costs, but reduced costs for conducting the analysis in the assessment itself.

    In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), HUD is specifically soliciting comment from members of the public and affected program participants on the Assessment Tool on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses;

    (5) Whether Option A or Option B of the Revised Assessment Tool would be the most effective and efficient way of conducting the analysis with respect to the selection of contributing factors. If one option is preferred over the other, please state the reasons for the preference;

    (6) While the Revised Assessment Tool was designed to set minimum AFH requirements as well as providing a straightforward process for HUD to review the AFH, how might program participants use the template to conduct broader collaborations including more comprehensive cross-sector collaborations? How could the Revised Assessment Tool provide greater flexibility for participants to collaborate and expand upon the framework HUD has set in the Revised Assessment Tool? How could the Revised Assessment Tool allow program participants to incorporate better or additional data, alternative mapping tools, or other data presentations; and

    (7) Whether additional changes to the Revised Assessment Tool would better facilitate regional collaboration among program participants.

    HUD encourages not only program participants but interested persons to submit comments regarding the information collection requirements in this proposal. Comments must be received by August 17, 2015 to www.regulations.gov as provided under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Comments must refer to the proposal by name and docket number (FR-5173-N-05).

    Dated: July 13, 2015. Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17463 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5874-N-02] HUD Administrative Fee Formula—Extension of Public Comment AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice: Extension of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 26, 2015, HUD published a notice in the Federal Register entitled “HUD Administrative Fee Formula-Solicitation of Comment,” inviting public comment through July 27, 2015. This document announces that HUD is extending the public comment period, for an additional 15-day period, to August 11, 2015.

    DATES:

    Comment Due Date: For the notice published on June 26, 2015 (80 FR 36832), the comment due date is extended to August 11, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.

    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.

    2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit comments, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

    Note:

    To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. All submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.

    No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (fax) comments are not acceptable.

    Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time, weekdays, at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Todd Richardson, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 8106, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-5706 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 26, 2015 (80 FR 36832), HUD published a notice in the Federal Register that invited public comment on the variables identified by the Housing Choice Voucher Program Administrative Fee Study as impacting administrative fee costs, how HUD might use these study findings to develop a new administrative fee formula, and any other issues that may arise with the development and implementation of a new administrative fee formula.

    In the June 26, 2015 notice, HUD established a comment due date of July 27, 2015. In response to recent requests for additional time to submit comments, HUD believes an extension of the deadline would provide the time needed for interested parties to submit comments. Therefore, HUD is announcing through this notice an extended comment period, for an additional 15-day period, to August 11, 2015.

    Dated: July 13, 2015. Camille Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations.
    [FR Doc. 2015-17462 Filed 7-15-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R6-ES-2015-N112]; [FXES11130600000-156-FF06E00000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft Recovery Plan for the Salt Creek Tiger Beetle AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of document availability for review and comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the availability of a draft recovery plan for the Salt Creek Tiger Beetle. This species is federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The Service solicits review and comment from the public on this draft plan.

    DATES:

    Comments on the draft recovery plan must be received on or before September 14, 2015.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the draft recovery plan are available on request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nebraska Ecological Services Field Office, 9325 South Alda Road, Wood River, Nebraska 68883; telephone 308-382-6468. Submit comments on the draft recovery plan to the Project Leader at this same address. An electronic copy of the draft recovery plan is available at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/recovery-plans.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eliza Hines, Project Leader, at the above address, or telephone 308-382-6468.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Service announces the availability of a draft recovery plan for the Salt Creek Tiger Beetle (Cicindela nevadica lincolniana). This subspecies is federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Act). The Service solicits review and comment from the public on this draft plan.

    Background

    Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point where it is again a viable, secure member of its ecosystem is a primary goal of the Service's endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, the Service prepares recovery plans for the federally listed species where a plan will promote the conservation of the species. Recovery plans describe site-specific actions necessary for the conservation of the species; establish objective, measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the species no longer needs the protection of the Act; and provide estimates of the time and cost for implementing the needed recovery measures.

    The Act requires recovery plans for listed species, unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. This is the first draft recovery plan for the Salt Creek tiger beetle. The Service will consider all information received during a public comment period, including peer review, when preparing a final recovery plan. We will summarize and respond to the issues raised by the public and peer reviewers in an appendix to the approved recovery plan.

    The Salt Creek tiger beetle was listed as a federal endangered subspecies on Nov